March 7 is the date of the Bombers first NAB cup fixture. Assuming they get a verdict before then, the penalties will be back dated to the date the infraction notices were delivered (except arguably for any player who played in international rules), which I believe was November 14. 6 months makes it May (players miss 6 rounds), 12 months makes it the full year. If the players play on March 7 before a verdict, and are found guilty, bans will start from then (6 months makes it September).

If the infraction notices are being adhered to they wouldn't be allowed to attend training as per Ahmed Saad.

So I don't see how there could be any backdating as they haven't been operating under the infraction notice to date....

Well, that will affect our third NAB cup match.

I know weird things happen pre-season, but I don't see us beating Fremantle. Claiming the scalps of Bulldogs and Bombers would be handy for team confidence though. I think we made much greater strides in the off-season than the Bulldogs did.

1. Are you implying the tribunal of Chairman Mr David Jones, a former County Court Judge, Mr John Nixon, a former County Court Judge and Mr Wayne Henwood, a barrister and former VFL player are AFL stooges? I would hope these learned gentleman would put a higher value on their personal and professional integrity.

2. A 'reprimand' implies a penalty for 'guilty' to charges. So, surely they can't just say: 'yes, based on 'comfortable satisfaction' you took the illegal gear (ie guilty) but we will let you off with a slap over the wrist (a reprimand).' Its either 'Guilty': penalise according to ASADA/WADA rules; or 'Innocent': let them go.

3. A 'reprimand' looks like a 50/50 each way bet.

That is exactly what I am saying, and Hird's relentless and expensive public campaign has been designed to position him as the innocent party supported by constant articles from tame journalists saying the players will get off. Judges will be highly influenced by this, as will be their existing prejudices about AFL football. The Australian atmosphere and public chatter makes it impossible not to be influenced by this. Thank god we have an international umpire who will know nothing of this, and will examine the evidence on its merits and in the auspices of WADA rules ie under European law where those accused have to prove their innocence. They will apply the law as it is - I would not bank on that in Australia where the AFL Tribunal is a private body set up to serve the interests of the AFL.

If the infraction notices are being adhered to they wouldn't be allowed to attend training as per Ahmed Saad.

So I don't see how there could be any backdating as they haven't been operating under the infraction notice to date....

I agree. I cannot believe they have been allowed to continue to train.

I can only assume the AFL has approved the training because it involves almost a whole team out of competition.

I think any suspension should start from the day they stop all involvement, but not sure it will happen that way unfortunately.

You can have any colour you like as long as it is black Pig Dog

I'm glad you understand OD.

That is exactly what I am saying, and Hird's relentless and expensive public campaign has been designed to position him as the innocent party supported by constant articles from tame journalists saying the players will get off. Judges will be highly influenced by this, as will be their existing prejudices about AFL football. The Australian atmosphere and public chatter makes it impossible not to be influenced by this. Thank god we have an international umpire who will know nothing of this, and will examine the evidence on its merits and in the auspices of WADA rules ie under European law where those accused have to prove their innocence. They will apply the law as it is - I would not bank on that in Australia where the AFL Tribunal is a private body set up to serve the interests of the AFL.

The you don't know judges.

If you were right how do you explain Justice Middleton's complete and utter obliteration of Hird in his first trial?

The Australian (yes I know ) today reports AFL held plea bid without ASADA by Chip Le Grand

AFL held plea bid without ASADA

The AFL conducted backroom negotiations without the knowledge of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in a failed bid to secure guilty pleas from current and former Essendon footballers accused of taking a banned peptide.

It is understood that Peter Gordon, an influential figure in Melbourne legal circles and president of the Western Bulldogs Football Club, was personally involved in negotiations to settle the case against the Bulldogs’ star forward Stewart Crameri.

Under a potential plea bargain discussed between counsel for the AFL Jeff Gleeson SC and legal representatives acting for Crameri and Bulldogs reserves player Brent Prismall, a two month ­suspension was suggested and ultimately, rejected.

...

Negotiations between the AFL, Gordon, and Crameri’s lawyers were held without the knowledge or approval of ASADA, the prosecuting agency in the hearing. Any penalty not endorsed by ASADA would be vulnerable to appeal by anti-doping authorities.

In response to questions from The Weekend Australian, a spokes­person for ASADA said: “ASADA has no knowledge of the alleged discussions referred to. There is no sanction proposal before current or former Essendon players, or their legal representatives, from ASADA.’’

The AFL also raised the idea of a plea with lawyers representing the other 32 players. The suggestion was rejected out of hand.

The secret talks took place last week amid growing concerns within the AFL and affected clubs that the anti-doping tribunal may not decide the case before this year’s football season starts.

The 34 players are provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the case.

Essendon will enter the 2015 season with only half a playing list to pick a team from if the tribunal does not hand down a finding before the opening round.

Le Grand has written extensively about the doping scandal and most of what he's produced has read as if it came straight out of the Essendon Football Club storybook.

I do love the reference to so-called "secret" talks. Nothing stays a secret very long in AFL circles except for things like the contents of the syringes which were injected into the veins of the Essendon players during the time when the doping scandal was unfolding. They're so secret that the Bombers don't have a clue what they were except for the fact that they can cure cancer.

Le Grand was nominated for a Walkely Award for the crap that he's been writing on the subject which says something about the standards of journalism in this country.

As for the secret talks, at least we now know where the story of the "two match" penalty came from and we can take a fair guess at the source of that particular leak.

Of more concern is that if the AFL was involved in these talks with Gordon and Crameri's lawyers, it raises some disturbing ethical questions about the AFL bearing in mind that one of it's own tribunals is in the midst of sitting in deliberation on some serious allegations concerning an AFL club, its players and officials.

WJ, I believe technically the AFL are the prosecution on the current hearing, however they are acting with ASADA who is leaking the prosecution.

One would think that if Essendon gets beaten by 100 points or more for the first couple of games the football public would, with a little prodding from the AFooL, be starting to feel sorry for them.

I know I would come 2050...

O well dodder, dodder...

WJ, I believe technically the AFL are the prosecution on the current hearing, however they are acting with ASADA who is leaking the prosecution.

The AFL Tribunal is hearing the case. Yes, ASADA is effectively acting as the prosecution.

My point is that it is completely inappropriate for the AFL to be conducting back door negotiations in these circumstances.

Le Grand has written extensively about the doping scandal and most of what he's produced has read as if it came straight out of the Essendon Football Club storybook.

I do love the reference to so-called "secret" talks. Nothing stays a secret very long in AFL circles except for things like the contents of the syringes which were injected into the veins of the Essendon players during the time when the doping scandal was unfolding. They're so secret that the Bombers don't have a clue what they were except for the fact that they can cure cancer.

Le Grand was nominated for a Walkely Award for the crap that he's been writing on the subject which says something about the standards of journalism in this country.

As for the secret talks, at least we now know where the story of the "two match" penalty came from and we can take a fair guess at the source of that particular leak.

Of more concern is that if the AFL was involved in these talks with Gordon and Crameri's lawyers, it raises some disturbing ethical questions about the AFL bearing in mind that one of it's own tribunals is in the midst of sitting in deliberation on some serious allegations concerning an AFL club, its players and officials.

It's the way they do business 'Jack'.

Integrity and the AFL are very strange bedfellows...

It's the way they do business 'Jack'.

Integrity and the AFL are very strange bedfellows...

In fact they have separate sleeping quarters

The AFL Tribunal is hearing the case. Yes, ASADA is effectively acting as the prosecution.

My point is that it is completely inappropriate for the AFL to be conducting back door negotiations in these circumstances.

My understanding is althoughASADA handed down infraction notices, the players have been charged by the AFL. The AFL is responsible for the prosecution however ASADA is assisting them.

As a result I do not think it is completely inappropriate for the AFL to be involved in these negotiations however it is inappropriate if ASADA is not involved or aware.

The Australian (yes I know ) today reports AFL held plea bid without ASADA by Chip Le Grand

...

Subterfuge

T

Subterfuge

It's a digital article.

I refuse to pay for anything LeGrande writes.

Can you paste the text.

Under a potential plea bargain discussed

Journalist [censored] for "something was brought up and immediately dismissed by both parties". Total weasel language from Chip designed to incite a situation into something more than it actually is, without technically being incorrect.

Essentially, more propaganda from News Corpse to perpetuate ASADA incompetence, and paint the AFL as inept (so when they they sentence Essendon players to year long bans, they look like the bad guys).

T

It's a digital article.

I refuse to pay for anything LeGrande writes.

Can you paste the text.

That's what I done

The missing text is only interesting if you have a boring life

That is exactly what I am saying, and Hird's relentless and expensive public campaign has been designed to position him as the innocent party supported by constant articles from tame journalists saying the players will get off. Judges will be highly influenced by this, as will be their existing prejudices about AFL football. The Australian atmosphere and public chatter makes it impossible not to be influenced by this. Thank god we have an international umpire who will know nothing of this, and will examine the evidence on its merits and in the auspices of WADA rules ie under European law where those accused have to prove their innocence. They will apply the law as it is - I would not bank on that in Australia where the AFL Tribunal is a private body set up to serve the interests of the AFL.

The you don't know judges.

If you were right how do you explain Justice Middleton's complete and utter obliteration of Hird in his first trial?

Maybe to clarify, the previous post said that the AFL tribunal would not be influenced by outside forces because it had distinguished people sitting on it including a retired County Court Judge. I beg to differ. In my view there is a huge difference between the AFL Tribunal, the body set up by the AFL to adjudicate on internal AFL rules and agreements with external parties such as ASADA, and the Federal Court of Australia of which Justice Middleton is a distinguished member. The AFL appoints the Tribunal's members, some of whom may be lawyers, even judges, but mostly they are ex footballers, albeit often very distinguished ones. They do not necessarily have a legal background.

Australian Courts are set up by government to enforce the laws of the land whether they be by legislation enacted by democratically elected Federal and State Governments, or through British Common Law. They are presided over by judges who are drawn from the elite of the legal profession, and are appointed only after many years distinguished service usually at the Bar, and such appointments are regarded by lawyers as the pinnacle of their profession. They are some of the brightest and most distinguished people in the country. Justice Middleton was acting under such a body in the Essendon case, on the basis that the decision taken by various bodies against them, particularly Hird, potentially broke the law of the land. It was not essentially a football matter.

The rules of ASADA/WADA dictate that any infraction of their rules on drug taking are first heard by the sporting tribunal set up by the governing body of the relevant sport in which the infraction has occurred to enforce their rules and any international rules they sign up to via voluntary agreement (eg WADA). These decisions can be appealed by any party to the decision, and WADA has the power to appeal any decision with which it disagrees to CAS, and often does, mostly successfully. Under this arrangement the AFL Tribunal is currently adjudicating on the infraction notices issued to the 34 current and ex EFC footballers by ASADA under their rules to which the AFL and all AFL clubs have voluntarily signed up to. No one though should pretend it is a court of law, because it isn't, and therefore is far more likely to be subject to interference from outside forces.

This is precisely why WADA has the ultimate sanction and last right of appeal to ensure the local forces do not interfere with the decisions of local tribunals. Ironically it was written into WADA rules because it was regarded as likely that so called "third world" sporting tribunals would be likely to be corrupted by local officials. As it turned out, the biggest scandal has occurred in first world Australia, and we are all fortunate that these rules are in place to ensure morally corrupt individuals like James Hird do not get away with their appalling behaviour.

Now does anyone else seriously suggest that decisions by the AFL tribunal are equivalent in authority and integrity to Federal Court of Australia decisions?

The Australian (yes I know ) today reports AFL held plea bid without ASADA by Chip Le Grand

Quote

AFL held plea bid without ASADA

The AFL conducted backroom negotiations without the knowledge of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in a failed bid to secure guilty pleas from current and former Essendon footballers accused of taking a banned peptide.

It is understood that Peter Gordon, an influential figure in Melbourne legal circles and president of the Western Bulldogs Football Club, was personally involved in negotiations to settle the case against the Bulldogs star forward Stewart Crameri.

Under a potential plea bargain discussed between counsel for the AFL Jeff Gleeson SC and legal representatives acting for Crameri and Bulldogs reserves player Brent Prismall, a two month ­suspension was suggested and ultimately, rejected.

...

Quote

Negotiations between the AFL, Gordon, and Crameris lawyers were held without the knowledge or approval of ASADA, the prosecuting agency in the hearing. Any penalty not endorsed by ASADA would be vulnerable to appeal by anti-doping authorities.

In response to questions from The Weekend Australian, a spokes­person for ASADA said: ASADA has no knowledge of the alleged discussions referred to. There is no sanction proposal before current or former Essendon players, or their legal representatives, from ASADA.

The AFL also raised the idea of a plea with lawyers representing the other 32 players. The suggestion was rejected out of hand.

The secret talks took place last week amid growing concerns within the AFL and affected clubs that the anti-doping tribunal may not decide the case before this years football season starts.

The 34 players are provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the case.

Essendon will enter the 2015 season with only half a playing list to pick a team from if the tribunal does not hand down a finding before the opening round.

The "plea bargain" Oh Chip you moron!

The Bulldogs are just trying to get their players on the track. They have to deal with the AFL as they are the ones adjudicating on the case. But the AFL still needs to adhere to its Anti Doping Code which states that to get reduced sanctions players need to apply for no significant fault or negligence or they need to plead guilty and provide substantial assistance which leads to successful prosecution of an Anti Doping Violation. In other words they need to dob all their ex team mates into ASADA and provide the nail in their coffins. Anything less wont cut it.

love the last bit about EFC not being able to field a team - Priceless

Is this an actual fact that the players are " provisionally suspended"?

Does this mean any real thing?

Is this an actual fact that the players are " provisionally suspended"?

Does this mean any real thing?

Players issued with infraction notices will generally step away from competition as part of provisional suspensions, however the sporting bodies involved have discretion which allows them to play. Essentially it is the player's choice, although I understand they need the AFL's permission.

Hence EFC small forward Cory Dell'Olio, and former Bomber Nathan Lovett-Murray were cleared to play in the NTFL.

However this could be an issue if a ban is imposed as the player gets credit for time served under provisional suspension.

Watson and Fletcher played in the International Rules gave, and if they cop a ban they could be out a month or so longer than others.

I was under the impression that they werent able to train with their club while suspended... as they currently are. So all bans if they were to occur would begin when they stop training?

I was under the impression that they werent able to train with their club while suspended... as they currently are. So all bans if they were to occur would begin when they stop training?

My understanding is that they have sought and been granted permission to train, but it's only matches that 'count' in regard to sanctions. There was some debate as to whether or not the IR game was in effect an AFL game.

My understanding is that they have sought and been granted permission to train, but it's only matches that 'count' in regard to sanctions. There was some debate as to whether or not the IR game was in effect an AFL game.

Hence my query as to whether this is a real thing as opposed to a wisp of smoke or a shadow of a wraith or a white lie