In response to BB and Ouch, I do not see how any party, not actually involved in the proceedings, namely the players, Dank and ASADA should see anything until the decision is finalised. Anything else smacks of the possibility of improper influence.

Now I may be wrong as to who the parties are. Perhaps the AFL is party to the proceedings? In which case I withdraw my remark.

But I replace it with the comment that it is improper for Gil to have commented on it publicly. For example, I just heard him 'quoted' on ABC radio as saying the players have no case to answer. Now that it not exactly what he did say, but it shows the dangers of him saying anything at this stage.

Hi Sue,

I agree that no comments should be made by any parties until after the decision has been handed down. But the AFL tribunal convened by the AFL conducted the hearing, therefore I think that the AFL is going to be 'aware' of the evidence presented, which is different to being privvy to the findings, or knowing the penalties (if any) are to be handed out. Dank, ASADA, players etc shouldn't know what is happening until tomorrow.

I totally agree that nothing should be being played out in the media in regards to this prior to Tuesday, but that to me is different than whether certain parties have an awareness of what is going on. The fact that Gil is saying anything to anyone is stupid....

Hi Sue,

I agree that no comments should be made by any parties until after the decision has been handed down. But the AFL tribunal convened by the AFL conducted the hearing, therefore I think that the AFL is going to be 'aware' of the evidence presented, again not privvy to the findings yet. Dank, ASADA, players etc shouldn't know what is happening until tomorrow.

I totally agree that nothing should be being played out in the media in regards to this prior to Tuesday, but that to me is different than whether certain parties have an awareness of what is going on. The fact that Gil is saying anything to anyone is stupid....

Afraid I disagree Ouch. Convening a tribunal is not sufficient grounds for knowing what is happening at it. If anything, having convened an enquiry or whatever, a convening body should stand well back.

For example, the government convenes the courts and is effectively the prosecutor as The Queen vs Hird (I'm looking ahead ). If the proceedings are 'in camera' as these ones are, it is not appropriate for the government to know what is happening. And as we seem to be agreed, it is definitely not appropriate for the Attorney General or the PM to publicly state during the proceedings 'I have seen the evidence and I think xxxx'.

But as I said earlier, if the AFL is actually present at the Tribunal then Gil is entitled to see it all, but then the problem is Gil's going public with his opinions based on 'what I know and you do not'.

This is why the AFL are not the people who should be overseeing this .

Afraid I disagree Ouch. Convening a tribunal is not sufficient grounds for knowing what is happening at it. If anything, having convened an enquiry or whatever, a convening body should stand well back.

For example, the government convenes the courts and is effectively the prosecutor as The Queen vs Hird (I'm looking ahead ). If the proceedings are 'in camera' as these ones are, it is not appropriate for the government to know what is happening. And as we seem to be agreed, it is definitely not appropriate for the Attorney General or the PM to publicly state during the proceedings 'I have seen the evidence and I think xxxx'.

But as I said earlier, if the AFL is actually present at the Tribunal then Gil is entitled to see it all, but then the problem is Gil's going public with his opinions based on 'what I know and you do not'.

The final point is the one that matters, Sue.

The Federal Court had no problem with the evidence gathering and sharing processes, which Hird etc attempted to construe as a joint investigation. It stands to reason that the AFL investigators have developed a full knowledge of the case against the 34, whether they were responsible for compiling and presenting it to the tribunal or not. If Gill is ultimately responsible for the actions of his investigation unit then he's entitled to see what they've done (interfering while they were doing it would be a different matter but there's no suggestion of that).

I think Ouch is right that the real problem here is Gill's adding to the media speculation. He should just shut up until Old Dee's countdown is finished.

The AFL is entitled to know the evidence because in this case the AFL/ASADA are prosecuting together, at an AFL convened tribunal.

For a representative of the AFL to come out and say "ASADA evidence is weak" that is the same as saying "our evidence is weak".

What it shows me is that the AFL (i.e. Gil) are not interested in protecting against drugs in sport, in their sport, they are interested in protecting "the financial integrity of the 18 team competition in 2015", regardless of the situation.

The final point is the one that matters, Sue.

The Federal Court had no problem with the evidence gathering and sharing processes, which Hird etc attempted to construe as a joint investigation. It stands to reason that the AFL investigators have developed a full knowledge of the case against the 34, whether they were responsible for compiling and presenting it to the tribunal or not. If Gill is ultimately responsible for the actions of his investigation unit then he's entitled to see what they've done (interfering while they were doing it would be a different matter but there's no suggestion of that).

I think Ouch is right that the real problem here is Gill's adding to the media speculation. He should just shut up until Old Dee's countdown is finished.

I'm not in violent disagreement, except I'm not sure that the AFL is aware of all the evidence as you assume. Did not ASADA investigate with AFL support (eg at those notorious interviews)? Surely ASADA may have turned up evidence that the AFL is not aware of (outside of the tribunal proceedings). That said, it is still unclear to me to what extent the case at the tribunal is being brought by ASADA or by some combination of ASADA and the AFL. If it is joint, then you'd expect both the AFL and ASADA to know their complete case. But that makes it all the worse that Gil commented as he did.

I'm not in violent disagreement, except I'm not sure that the AFL is aware of all the evidence as you assume.

But you condemned them without knowing. I don't know either by the way, which is why I'm keeping my powder dry.

I agree Gil should not be making comment based on information not in the public domain (and I don't know if he did as my desire to keep abreast of this saga evaporated long ago) but in the first instance you are not sure whether he is "entitled" to have seen the evidence and in the second you say his knowing compromises the tribunals independence. Even if he shouldn't know, how does his knowledge taint the tribunal independence? Unless you have evidence of collaboration in the decision making process your accusation is baseless.

Seems to me your comments are misplaced given your lack of knowledge.

Well, here we go...2 Collingwood players tested positive to performance enhancing drugs.

Well, here we go...2 Collingwood players tested positive to performance enhancing drugs.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collingwood-footballers-lachy-keeffe-and-josh-thomas-face-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html

Lachy Keefe and Josh Thomas apparently.

Amazing stuff.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collingwood-footballers-lachy-keeffe-and-josh-thomas-face-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html

Lachy Keefe and Josh Thomas apparently.

Amazing stuff.

Wowee boy oh boy

Are either of them good players? Funny how its never the stars that test positive hey?

This is very bad for football and everyone will lose.

This is very bad for football and everyone will lose.

Yep, and it's why the AFL need to come down hard on anybody involved.

Time for Dill to step up to the plate and stop fiddling round the edges to get cheap chips.

It makes the Essendon penalty even more interesting......

What a shame we're not talking about footy.

Wowee boy oh boy

Are either of them good players? Funny how its never the stars that test positive hey?

I dunno, Crowley was pretty high profile.

Watson is a 'star' I'd say, along with Heppel. It's just that because they are part of a group of 34 players, they aren't singled out.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collingwood-footballers-lachy-keeffe-and-josh-thomas-face-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html

Lachy Keefe and Josh Thomas apparently.

Amazing stuff.

Fans and merde come to mind.

I dunno, Crowley was pretty high profile.

Watson is a 'star' I'd say, along with Heppel.

ok ill give you Crowley

of course Watson and Heppell are stars but they haven't tested positive for anything (not that we know of anyway)

ok ill give you Crowley

of course Watson and Heppell are stars but they haven't tested positive for anything (not that we know of anyway)

Lachy Keefe is pretty highly rated

Keefe is a 2m tall key defender. He played most of last season I think. Behind Read in the pecking order, but not as injury prone.

According to the updated Age article linked above the drug is Clenbuterol

'Clenbuterol is a drug used for asthma that is also often used by body builders as a body sculpting drug that helps burn fat and build muscle. It is this effect of creating leaner meat with a higher muscle to fat ratio that has seen it used in meat production in some countries.

Famously in 2011 more than 100 Mexican footballers tested positive to the drug but were cleared after it was established the drug as used in farming in the country and was often present in meat in the country.'

What's the bet they claim they ate contaminated meat?

By the by i look at the Hun website and there is nothing about it. Love to be a fly on the wall at HWT right about now as they scramble to get some info to report. Beaten to the scoop again

By the by i look at the Hun website and there is nothing about it. Love to be a fly on the wall at HWT right about now as they scramble to get some info to report. Beaten to the scoop again

Love this...Robbo was too busy working on his top 50.

It makes the Essendon penalty even more interesting......

What a shame we're not talking about footy.

Agree with both comments 'Bob'.

I believe the AFL have played loose with this issue for a long time now and it is coming back to bite.

I believe the AFL have played loose with this issue

How?

How?

A few things...

The early WC premierships are tainted with many fans, this one included.

They and their media cronies have stomped on anyone who has raised issues with drugs in the past.

They tried to do deals with the Essendon problem when they should have stomped it out when they had a chance.

Not enough resources are devoted to keeping the sport clean.

They are not seriously testing if someone like Ben Cousins can play a career without having a positive test.

The 3 strikes policy, I understand the spin and agree to some extent with the idea behind it but with players able to play the system it does't hold up.

I know in the main these drugs are not seen as performance enhancing but some are and now the last WC premiership is tainted. The AFL needed to come down harder.

When Denham is quoting figures of up to 70% of players using illicit drugs in the off season then we have a problem. I have been told of whole clubs being supplied on mad mondays so I believe the figure is real.

I know it's a huge issue in society but someone needs to show the way and the AFL can start. These players are not normal members of society they are payed well above the average kid and should maintain standards. The line is blurred. To me if you want to join the rest of society good for you but don't expect the privilege and advantages of being an AFL player.

Gambling is the next big one 'Bob', it's only a matter of time.

But you condemned them without knowing. I don't know either by the way, which is why I'm keeping my powder dry.

I agree Gil should not be making comment based on information not in the public domain (and I don't know if he did as my desire to keep abreast of this saga evaporated long ago) but in the first instance you are not sure whether he is "entitled" to have seen the evidence and in the second you say his knowing compromises the tribunals independence. Even if he shouldn't know, how does his knowledge taint the tribunal independence? Unless you have evidence of collaboration in the decision making process your accusation is baseless.

Seems to me your comments are misplaced given your lack of knowledge.

Well if you read my posts you will see I have already done a mea culpa for having jumped the gun, though I did believe (wrongly) I had all the facts when I first posted.

if the AFL were serious more players would be getting caught. I've always wondered why until now no one has been done for banned drugs.