Surely it would be in the players interests to be able to cross examine Charter and Alavi, for I have no doubt that ASADA will be introducing evidence they have garnered from them. The evidence will have less value than if they attended but the players will not be able to cross examine, so for mine I think the players are the big losers and ADADA can say we did our best to get them here but they declined.

Yes, Charter and Alavi declined to appear and the players, although represented at the Supreme Court don't appear to have made a big fuss about them attending.

How can they turn around and complain later on that they don't have the opportunity to cross examine them on their evidence.

If you're going to draw inferences, they are that that the players didn't particularly want them to give evidence because they felt that such evidence would not help their prospects of proving that they weren't given tb4.

Why (if found guilty) wouldn't they be suspended for the time it takes the drug to get fully out of their systems.

I presume this would possibly be some time....

Anyone listen to Rohan Conolly this morning on SEN?

James Hird has done nothing wrong & the 2 new board members are a great idea!!!

Unbelievablethat this club has got such a soft ride thus far in the media.

I will never attend another Essendrug home game.

Connolly is a chronic Essendon apologist.

Why (if found guilty) wouldn't they be suspended for the time it takes the drug to get fully out of their systems.

I presume this would possibly be some time....

Some research suggest these drugs could change a players physiology permanently (something to do with increasing the number of nuclei in the muscle cells) if this is so then the answer to your question would be : suspended for LIFE!!

http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/muscle_memory_solved/

Connolly is a chronic Essendon apologist.

Rohan is also an Essendon supporter

Yes, Charter and Alavi declined to appear and the players, although represented at the Supreme Court don't appear to have made a big fuss about them attending.

How can they turn around and complain later on that they don't have the opportunity to cross examine them on their evidence.

If you're going to draw inferences, they are that that the players didn't particularly want them to give evidence because they felt that such evidence would not help their prospects of proving that they weren't given tb4.

Presumably they supported the case for them not having to attend or they wouldn't be looking for costs after winning.

But you are spot on. It is all in line with the EFC tactic of wanting the truth to come out as long as it doesn't.

As for Hird, he could hide behind a spiral staircase.

just stocked up on popcorn and bananas this morning, thanks jack

Thinking of stocking up on Essendon jumpers with # 34 on the back...could be the fashion hit of next Autumn.

THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL (has a nice ring to it!)

Some things I know I don't know:

Assuming the players get a substantial ban E.G 12 matches, Essendon will need a squad from "somewhere" to be able to compete so: can suspended players still train at the club and how does that fit with a list limit of 42?

If they are allowed to train how much focus from coaching staff will they get given coaches have to prepare the "playing" squad for match days?

Once suspension is served how long before these players reach match fitness and how long to meld again into a competitive team unit?

What becomes of the "from somewhere" squad members (above) once the suspended players return? If some talent(s) is discovered in the "somewhere" pool do they stay? How?

. . . and so on!!

Probably there are things I don't know I don't know . . but I can't be sure!

My understanding is if they are rubbed out they have to serve that immediately. It is likely that a number of coaches (hopefully not Goodwin, although I wouldn't count on it) will also be rubbed out, I suspect in Hird's case for life. What ESSENDON do to field a team will be largely up to the AFL after WADA enforce their bans. I suspect they will be allowed some sort of special draft where they will be allowed to draft the best of the rest to replace the 34. What this does to salary caps who knows but they are largely AFL rules based anyway, which the AFL has the power to relax, but what I am absolutely certain of it will result in most of the 34 litigating against the AFL, EFC and Hird. It could go on for a couple more years.

Rohan is also an Essendon supporter

As are Mark Robinson and Chip Le Grand from memory. Not sure who else but it's pretty clear when reading some of their articles they wrote them while staring at their Hird poster above their bed with tears in their eyes. "Why has thou forsaken me Jimmy??"

James Hird is a disgrace. Everything is about him, he is oppressed, he is wrongly accused, he is more important than the club.

Whatever advantage we may or may not gain from the legal decision that eventuates you must feel for the players.

Other than Fletcher and Watson (whom I admire) any one of them, given the vagaries of the draft, could have been ours.

Then the poor sods would have been subjected to what passes for support on this site but they found themselves at EFC through circumstance and subjected to a program they were entitled to trust.

They are victims not cheats. The cheats are the planners of the program and Hird was their boss.

Ignorance in administration is no excuse in law particularly when the message, from the coach, the overseer, is "what ever it takes".

James Hird is a disgrace. Everything is about him, he is oppressed, he is wrongly accused, he is more important than the club.

Whatever advantage we may or may not gain from the legal decision that eventuates you must feel for the players.

Other than Fletcher and Watson (whom I admire) any one of them, given the vagaries of the draft, could have been ours.

Then the poor sods would have been subjected to what passes for support on this site but they found themselves at EFC through circumstance and subjected to a program they were entitled to trust.

They are victims not cheats. The cheats are the planners of the program and Hird was their boss.

Ignorance in administration is no excuse in law particularly when the message, from the coach, the overseer, is "what ever it takes".

I once thought this, I'm not as sure anymore.

They must have had reservations and if so it should have been more than a couple of senior players asking a few questions.

A new program, wins on the board, the club flying...the doubts subside, we are invincible.

...as I say, I'm not so sure anymore.

They are victims not cheats. The cheats are the planners of the program and Hird was their boss.

Disagree.

I am, You are, we all are, responsible for what goes into our own bodies.

they clearly asked no questions.

they signed waivers exonerating anyone else of responsibility.

they obviously did no research themselves.

they were responsible for what went into their bodies.

the players and no one else.

if they didnt know then they were deliberately ignorant.

if they were "young and stupid" they should have been guided by the older heads.

they have no excuses.

if they were injected with TB4 then they were the only ones responsible for it, and they will be held responsible for it.

we all have the power to say no.

8/42 did say no.

they were not victims.

they were cheats.

Edited December 12, 201410 yr by biggestred

and dont give me that story about an 18 year old just starting out feeling unable to speak out against what was happening.

if their culture was any good he wouldnt have any problems speaking out against something that contravened asada rules.

and dont give me that story about an 18 year old just starting out feeling unable to speak out against what was happening.

if their culture was any good he wouldnt have any problems speaking out against something that contravened asada rules.

So an 18 year old is meant to go against all his senior team mates and 'change the culture'. You can't blame the 18 year old for the clubs poor leadership.

The AFL is a sport where performance enhancing drug testing is probably pretty rare. So players aren't on edge at all. Before Ahmed Saad you go back decades to find the player caught before. It's so much different to cycling or an Olympic sport where drug testing is front and centre.

The club brings in a biochemist who starts a program that likely builds up from vitamins to simple peptides to then the experimental stuff that we still don't know if it was against the ASADA/WADA code or not.

Every step of the way you can see how the players were lead in to this. It wasn't like Dank turned up one day and went straight for the big gun substances. Instead he won the coaches over with dodgy products, had Danny Corcoran on side, had the Weapon involved. The waiver is a great example of a trick used to get players in to the program. "Here, sign something for your own protection that says this is legal", why would a player not sign that?

Personally I haven't worked out why the AFL hasn't just quit ASADA by now and employed their own PED code and testing.

Lots of discussion of what would/should happen in a court of law in this thread. I think we all need to reassess based on the fact that this is not going to be judged in a court, but in front of the notoriously inconsistent and politically guided AFL tribunal with no media in attendance. Given the way it has been handled so far and the decision to close the hearing, you have to question whether the AFL is planning on playing this one straight. They have a long and proud history of quietly sweeping things under the carpet in the name of not making a fuss and maintaining the appearance of propriety (such as not finding Melbourne guilty but fining them anyway and suspending coaches). I suspect the discussions at the tribunal (behind closed doors) will center more on what penalty will satisfy ASADA, give the appearance of punishing the guilty and make it look like the issue has been fully resolved and never has to be mentioned again.

I also suspect that no matter what they decide behind those closed doors, they have already failed in their attempt to maintain appearances. If they let the players off lightly, the vast majority of the football world will think they have half-assed the hearing and swept it all under the mat. If they punish them according to the standard penalties, the Essendon fans will never believe that they have been treated fairly. The only way the AFL could have come out of this looking good was if they made the hearing public. Hiding it has virtually guaranteed that this issue won't die.

James Hird is a disgrace. Everything is about him, he is oppressed, he is wrongly accused, he is more important than the club.

Whatever advantage we may or may not gain from the legal decision that eventuates you must feel for the players.

Other than Fletcher and Watson (whom I admire) any one of them, given the vagaries of the draft, could have been ours.

Then the poor sods would have been subjected to what passes for support on this site but they found themselves at EFC through circumstance and subjected to a program they were entitled to trust.

They are victims not cheats. The cheats are the planners of the program and Hird was their boss.

Ignorance in administration is no excuse in law particularly when the message, from the coach, the overseer, is "what ever it takes".

Hey maybe one or two 18 yr olds are victims but if you think they all are you are kidding yourself

When you are on the gear you can feel its effects, you know,what it's doing...

As none of them checked meant they were happy to push the boundrys and are really guilty as sin and deserve the full two years

They kept the secret. Haven't broken ranks even now. Maybe it is like a cult, but there will have been any amount of people warning them, yet they chose to stay, all the way through, and still do. It's not easy leaving a cult, but people do. These guys didn't, and even when help arrived to support them, making "victim" an option, they have stuck with it.

You can't go on saying they don't really have any choice now. Sorry fellas, but you have ultimately removed any doubt - you have supported the architects and drivers of this corruption, you too want to stare down attempts to have the sport clean, and get away with it; you are abetting the evasion of accountability for what must be the worst attack on the game in its history.

Choosing to align so firmly with the bad guys, if ever there was any room for doubt or mitigation, you have at any rate become guilty. Just like the club, your greatest guilt comes from how you have behaved since the doping was discovered.

Edited December 12, 201410 yr by robbiefrom13

The club brings in a biochemist who starts a program that likely builds up from vitamins to simple peptides to then the experimental stuff that we still don't know if it was against the ASADA/WADA code or not.

To the extent that it's known what they took, the WADA code is clear.

It's Dank/Essendon who have done their best to muddy the waters. Has worked with some it seems.

My essendon mate is now at the point where he believes even if they get found guilty by the afl it will be a disgrace as asada have no evidence.

Which is exactly what essendon want him to believe

My essendon mate is now at the point where he believes even if they get found guilty by the afl it will be a disgrace as asada have no evidence.

Which is exactly what essendon want him to believe

It is very disturbing that you have one of those...

and dont give me that story about an 18 year old just starting out feeling unable to speak out against what was happening.

if their culture was any good he wouldnt have any problems speaking out against something that contravened asada rules.

They weren't all 18 year olds - some were verging on retirement.

They weren't all 18 year olds - some were verging on retirement.

One was 35+

They kept the secret. Haven't broken ranks even now. Maybe it is like a cult, but there will have been any amount of people warning them, yet they chose to stay, all the way through, and still do. It's not easy leaving a cult, but people do. These guys didn't, and even when help arrived to support them, making "victim" an option, they have stuck with it.

You can't go on saying they don't really have any choice now. Sorry fellas, but you have ultimately removed any doubt - you have supported the architects and drivers of this corruption, you too want to stare down attempts to have the sport clean, and get away with it; you are abetting the evasion of accountability for what must be the worst attack on the game in its history.

Choosing to align so firmly with the bad guys, if ever there was any room for doubt or mitigation, you have at any rate become guilty. Just like the club, your greatest guilt comes from how you have behaved since the doping was discovered.

Time to sip the Kool-Aid at Bomberstown!!

Cults signs of:

1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.

2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called "brainwashing"].

The culmination of this process can be seen by members of the group often doing things that are not in their own best interest, but consistently in the best interest of the group and its leader.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

The destructiveness of groups called cults varies by degree, from labour violations, child abuse, medical neglect to, in some extreme and isolated situations, calls for violence or mass suicide.

Some groups that were once seen as "cults" have historically evolved to become generally regarded as religions. Power devolved from a single leader to a broader church government and such groups ceased to be seen as simply personality-driven and defined by a single individual.

Some groups may not fit the definition of a cult, but may pose potential risks for participants. Here are 10 warning signs of a potentially unsafe group or leader.

• Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

• No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

• No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.

• Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

• There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

• Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

• There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader.

• Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

• The group/leader is always right.

• The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Interestingly, if Charter were ever to front a doping tribunal or called before an appeals body, how far back could/would the questioning go?

Would he for instance be quizzed on "assistance" he gave Hird during his playing days?

How far back does Charter's work with Alavi go and with what substances and for whom?

Interesting times.

Time to sip the Kool-Aid at Bomberstown!!

Cults signs of:

.....

All very well, but the one standard cult environment they did not have was isolation. They had friends, family, players form other clubs, press etc outside of the EFC. Amazing that they have stuck together so solidly so far. Probably means they are innocent (as lambs).