Just listened to Gil on 3aw.

He is already apologising for the players.

Said he believed the players did not know what they were given.

Preparing the wet tram tickets already.

I have never heard a worse performance by the chief of a sport organisation.

Neil Mitchell said to him that is no excuse!

Just past it off.

P iss poor.

This guy is a disaster, the AFL is in danger with this guy at the helm.

yes i heard, od. agree, complete apologist and bumbling fool. but what did you expect

Just listened to Gil on 3aw.

He is already apologising for the players.

Said he believed the players did not know what they were given.

Preparing the wet tram tickets already.

I have never heard a worse performance by the chief of a sport organisation.

Neil Mitchell said to him that is no excuse!

Just past it off.

P iss poor.

This guy is a disaster, the AFL is in danger with this guy at the helm.

...but 'old dee', Dill has got us cheap chips at the footy.

yes i heard, od. agree, complete apologist and bumbling fool. but what did you expect

he's the commensurate polo bloke though

he's the commensurate polo bloke though

funny, bub how they picked the day before april fools day to announce decision

surely they could have waited another day

or maybe that's the day set aside for sentencing?

Edited March 26, 201511 yr by daisycutter

MEET THE TRIBUNAL

makes for an interesting read

MEET THE TRIBUNAL

makes for an interesting read

I didn't know that Jones was on the panel that let Barry Hall off for that punch. Looks like the decision will be an award to Essendon for innovation in football.

Gil...doesnt get it.

Thats OK...some others do...they'll correct his errors

Compared to the doubt expressed by others your certainty and clarity continue to give me cause for optimism. I must admit to being a born cynic. However you give me hope old chap. You are much better than my shrink.

Thank you Dr Beelze.

...but 'old dee', Dill has got us cheap chips at the footy.

Thank you for the reminder

That Will save me about $5 this year.

Sorry Gil what a wonderful bloke you are.

Anyone see the big announcent regarding Dank that brayshaw and lyon spruked on the break pre show?

Compared to the doubt expressed by others your certainty and clarity continue to give me cause for optimism. I must admit to being a born cynic. However you give me hope old chap. You are much better than my shrink.

Thank you Dr Beelze.

Ernest, I have little to no faith in the AFL. This Tribunal is only just this side of a sham. Time after time the AFL has shown itself capable indeed desirous of meddling and of inappropriate input/control (or attempted ) of anything and everything that it considers its' domain.

The AFL is entirely the wrong body to be overseeing this. They are complicit and have far too much self interest to deliver an unbiased outcome. I almost thought it amusing to note that the other day the AFL signed off on the new ammended 2015 version of the WADA code. Im almost convinced they see this as some form of ornamental dressing , just to shut the big(ger) boys up.

And I mean it when I suggest Gil just doesnt get it. He's still acting like a the boss of some schoolyard gang paying lip service to those in authority whilst scheming and running all his shady little shenanigans .It wont be by any accident that the 3 of the tribunal were selected. Gil will be hoping for the most favourable ( to the afl ) decision from them.

Its all still seen by this lot as a parochial event, just something a bit messy in their own backyard, but it's ok, they can 'clean ' it all up.

Do they have their collective heads in the sand, are they themselves in some form of denial or are they just silly enough to think this is the end.

Just as sure as I am in my belief that the AFL is essentially a self serving corrupt collective then I am I comforted ( as it goes ) to consider that McDevitt and Howman will see it very differently.

Gil I'm sad to say comes from the same management school as our very own Cam Schwab. All style and absolutely no substance.

Ernest, I have little to no faith in the AFL. This Tribunal is only just this side of a sham. Time after time the AFL has shown itself capable indeed desirous of meddling and of inappropriate input/control (or attempted ) of anything and everything that it considers its' domain.

The AFL is entirely the wrong body to be overseeing this. They are complicit and have far too much self interest to deliver an unbiased outcome. I almost thought it amusing to note that the other day the AFL signed off on the new ammended 2015 version of the WADA code. Im almost convinced they see this as some form of ornamental dressing , just to shut the big(ger) boys up.

And I mean it when I suggest Gil just doesnt get it. He's still acting like a the boss of some schoolyard gang paying lip service to those in authority whilst scheming and running all his shady little shenanigans .It wont be by any accident that the 3 of the tribunal were selected. Gil will be hoping for the most favourable ( to the afl ) decision from them.

Its all still seen by this lot as a parochial event, just something a bit messy in their own backyard, but it's ok, they can 'clean ' it all up.

Do they have their collective heads in the sand, are they themselves in some form of denial or are they just silly enough to think this is the end.

Just as sure as I am in my belief that the AFL is essentially a self serving corrupt collective then I am I comforted ( as it goes ) to consider that McDevitt and Howman will see it very differently.

Appreciate this explanation. Totally agree with your conclusions except I think Gil does get it. Yes, he is acting like the boss of his schoolyard gang as he is protecting his backyard and his job. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. By looking after one of his most powerful constituents he is looking after himself. The AFL and the clubs are mutually dependent on one another. In behavioural terms, it is difficult to go from being a mate (to AFL Presidents and their clubs) to taking a hard line decision that will end that comfortable relationship. However, as you say, this is different from the normal run of in-house issues. ASADA and WADA provide that difference. One way or another this is going to change the paradigm and challenge the way in which the AFL and clubs deal with issues of a drug related nature.

Appreciate this explanation. Totally agree with your conclusions except I think Gil does get it. Yes, he is acting like the boss of his schoolyard gang as he is protecting his backyard and his job. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. By looking after one of his most powerful constituents he is looking after himself. The AFL and the clubs are mutually dependent on one another. In behavioural terms, it is difficult to go from being a mate (to AFL Presidents and their clubs) to taking a hard line decision that will end that comfortable relationship. However, as you say, this is different from the normal run of in-house issues. ASADA and WADA provide that difference. One way or another this is going to change the paradigm and challenge the way in which the AFL and clubs deal with issues of a drug related nature.

I totally agree that Gil understands where his place in all of this is, its just thatt whilst he pays attention to who's buttering the bread he fails to understand that should the AFL not be seen to be doing right by the Code ( Wadas ) that they , Wada , will come after all and sundry and then Gil will look like the real Dil he is.

Quote from Peter Gordon

"I think it's as likely as not, indeed possibly the most likely outcome that the case is not proven against the players."

Yeah he would say that. After all his team signed Stewart Crameri up on big $$$.

It will be interesting to see what rubbish is invented/published over the next few days as a last effort for the propaganda merchants.

I have no real confidence that the tribunal will come nearly close to whats expected as a due result but I cant see for the life of me how the players can get off.

It will be interesting to see what rubbish is invented/published over the next few days as a last effort for the propaganda merchants.

I have no real confidence that the tribunal will come nearly close to whats expected as a due result but I cant see for the life of me how the players can get off.

We have had a different opinion on this for the best part of two years bb.

What is right and what actually happens are quite often worlds apart.

We have had a different opinion on this for the best part of two years bb.

What is right and what actually happens are quite often worlds apart.

nice to see differences of opinion without ego and posters getting personal.

quote from Peter Gordon

"I think it's as likely as not, indeed possibly the most likely outcome that the case is not proven against the players."

yeah he would say that. After all his team signed Stewart Crameri up on big $$$.

When did Peter Gordon say this? Just recently?

Both Peter Gordon and Ross Stevenson (a former lawyer) would have some similar contacts. I wonder whether there has been a genuine leak. I had assumed the Tribunal made its decision about a fortnight ago and was using the last couple of weeks to write what they hope will be a watertight set of reasons for their decision. If so, a leak is quite possible.

For what it's worth, in my own mind I had always thought there was a 20% chance of a "not guilty" finding on the basis of that there was a lack of sufficient proof, primarily due to the chain of custody evidence.

If the players and club officials get off then the WADA code should just be torn up and shredded on the spot.

When did Peter Gordon say this? Just recently?

Both Peter Gordon and Ross Stevenson (a former lawyer) would have some similar contacts. I wonder whether there has been a genuine leak. I had assumed the Tribunal made its decision about a fortnight ago and was using the last couple of weeks to write what they hope will be a watertight set of reasons for their decision. If so, a leak is quite possible.

For what it's worth, in my own mind I had always thought there was a 20% chance of a "not guilty" finding on the basis of that there was a lack of sufficient proof, primarily due to the chain of custody evidence.

I have always thought the chance was a lot higher than 20%.

I hope I am wrong but I have always had trouble believing the Players would get walloped.

The proof is one thing but the AFL does not want them suspended.

It just makes their ( AFL ) collective jobs way harder.

nice to see differences of opinion without ego and posters getting personal.

That's where I disagree Ernie, And that beard of yours is inappropriate.

It will be interesting to see what rubbish is invented/published over the next few days as a last effort for the propaganda merchants.

I have no real confidence that the tribunal will come nearly close to whats expected as a due result but I cant see for the life of me how the players can get off.

Perhaps they would pursue the line that there is enough evidence to support illegal player use of drugs, but not enough evidence to find an individual player guilty. It could be argued that some players were injected with a banned substance, but some were not and the 'innocent' player cannot be expected to be punished for another players crime - which then leads to the question of who were the 'innocent' player(s).

Of course this would then provide a loophole to systemic drug abuse at clubs everywhere - where they take the "firing squad approach" of 4 in 5 players getting the drug injection and one a placebo, without detailing who!

Was that Ross' rumor on rumor files?

No it wasn't the rumour file. he said it talking to Jon Anderson.

Edited March 27, 201511 yr by djr

I have always thought the chance was a lot higher than 20%.

I hope I am wrong but I have always had trouble believing the Players would get walloped.

The proof is one thing but the AFL does not want them suspended.

It just makes their ( AFL ) collective jobs way harder.

Then why join the WADA Code.

This is so much bigger than just jobs at AFL House

Then why join the WADA Code.

This is so much bigger than just jobs at AFL House

Just my opinion Sir

And who knows they might get suspended.