On the 'boycott' thing do the AFL have the power to guarantee backdating...wouldn't it be up to ASADA to negotiate not the AFL. I suspect that ASADA would be in no mood to play that game given the merry-go-round EFC have given them.

I'm gobsmacked at how arrogant and brazen the 'boycott' threat is. Any respect or sympathy I had for EFC players has now gone out the window. Man up guys and take your medicine (if found guilty that is)

Woke up this morning to that otherwise amusing sports guy on ABC Radio national saying how weak the ASADA evidence was and citing the 3 witnesses who refused to testify and some case on the ASADA website which had a high burden of proof. All along he has been an EFC apologist.

I really wonder what he would consider 'beyond reasonable doubt' proof - sounds like he would want videos of the injections being given with close-ups of the player's face and of the vials with simultaneous chemical analysis of the contents and a DNA sample from the player.

Woke up this morning to that otherwise amusing sports guy on ABC Radio national saying how weak the ASADA evidence was and citing the 3 witnesses who refused to testify and some case on the ASADA website which had a high burden of proof. All along he has been an EFC apologist.

I really wonder what he would consider 'beyond reasonable doubt' proof - sounds like he would want videos of the injections being given with close-ups of the player's face and of the vials with simultaneous chemical analysis of the contents and a DNA sample from the player.

One interesting angle I haven't seen discussed anywhere is the possibility of the Essendon players getting done purely on "intent". So far as I'm aware, it isn't necessary to show that an athlete actually took a prohibited substance under the ASADA code, merely that it was their intention to do so. If memory serves me correctly, it has actually happened that athletes have been banned for merely ordering banned substances, even where it was clear they hadn't taken them.

Now my understanding is that the INs specifically charge the players with using banned substances, but I'd be curious to know if the prospect of a conviction still stands even if they can't definitively finger the exact players injected with TB4 and the exact times and places these injections occurred. EFC apologists seem to have it in their heads that in the absence of hard, concrete evidence for specific injections of a specific substance at specific times that the players must be cleared. This, however, is a ridiculously high standard of proof for a doping case (perhaps even for a criminal case, where circumstantial evidence can often be enough) and I think they have to be a little more sensitive to the present realities of the case. Namely, that the EFC players signed consent forms permitting the injection of "Thymosin" which should be enough to ping the players on intent alone, and I can't quite understand how they've been able to convince themselves that even the evidence circulating in the public realm wouldn't be enough for a conviction. The only doubt here seems to be to what "Thymosin" refers to, but given there is a long paper trail linking TB4 to the club and literally nothing linking "Thymomodulin" to the club (and which is never referred to as "Thymosin" anyway) I really don't know what paths the lawyers have to get them out of this one (save having all the evidence thrown out, which is obviously what they've tried very hard to do!).

It's a Python sketch. The tumbrils are waiting, and the players are threatening to slash their wrists with a spoon.

One interesting angle I haven't seen discussed anywhere is the possibility of the Essendon players getting done purely on "intent". So far as I'm aware, it isn't necessary to show that an athlete actually took a prohibited substance under the ASADA code, merely that it was their intention to do so. If memory serves me correctly, it has actually happened that athletes have been banned for merely ordering banned substances, even where it was clear they hadn't taken them.

Now my understanding is that the INs specifically charge the players with using banned substances, but I'd be curious to know if the prospect of a conviction still stands even if they can't definitively finger the exact players injected with TB4 and the exact times and places these injections occurred. EFC apologists seem to have it in their heads that in the absence of hard, concrete evidence for specific injections of a specific substance at specific times that the players must be cleared. This, however, is a ridiculously high standard of proof for a doping case (perhaps even for a criminal case, where circumstantial evidence can often be enough) and I think they have to be a little more sensitive to the present realities of the case. Namely, that the EFC players signed consent forms permitting the injection of "Thymosin" which should be enough to ping the players on intent alone, and I can't quite understand how they've been able to convince themselves that even the evidence circulating in the public realm wouldn't be enough for a conviction. The only doubt here seems to be to what "Thymosin" refers to, but given there is a long paper trail linking TB4 to the club and literally nothing linking "Thymomodulin" to the club (and which is never referred to as "Thymosin" anyway) I really don't know what paths the lawyers have to get them out of this one (save having all the evidence thrown out, which is obviously what they've tried very hard to do!).

Wade Lees, who was a Casey player at the time , says hi.

One interesting angle I haven't seen discussed anywhere is the possibility of the Essendon players getting done purely on "intent". So far as I'm aware, it isn't necessary to show that an athlete actually took a prohibited substance under the ASADA code, merely that it was their intention to do so. If memory serves me correctly, it has actually happened that athletes have been banned for merely ordering banned substances, even where it was clear they hadn't taken them.

Now my understanding is that the INs specifically charge the players with using banned substances, but I'd be curious to know if the prospect of a conviction still stands even if they can't definitively finger the exact players injected with TB4 and the exact times and places these injections occurred. EFC apologists seem to have it in their heads that in the absence of hard, concrete evidence for specific injections of a specific substance at specific times that the players must be cleared. This, however, is a ridiculously high standard of proof for a doping case (perhaps even for a criminal case, where circumstantial evidence can often be enough) and I think they have to be a little more sensitive to the present realities of the case. Namely, that the EFC players signed consent forms permitting the injection of "Thymosin" which should be enough to ping the players on intent alone, and I can't quite understand how they've been able to convince themselves that even the evidence circulating in the public realm wouldn't be enough for a conviction. The only doubt here seems to be to what "Thymosin" refers to, but given there is a long paper trail linking TB4 to the club and literally nothing linking "Thymomodulin" to the club (and which is never referred to as "Thymosin" anyway) I really don't know what paths the lawyers have to get them out of this one (save having all the evidence thrown out, which is obviously what they've tried very hard to do!).

Posted by ManDee on 16 June 2014 - 04:32 PM in Melbourne Demons

nutbean, on 16 Jun 2014 - 3:14 PM, said:

If no one knows what drugs are administered then how can the players be guilty ? ( or Danks and Robinson know but refuse to divulge).

As a player, I would want to see proof that the drugs taken were illegal before accepting ( or not challenging ) any penalty.

You can throw the book at the administration for overseeing a supplement regime with no controls - it brings the game into disrepute,

However if no-one can prove that a banned drug was taken then you can't punish the players.

Yes you can.

From ASADA 8 anti doping rule violations.. https://asada.gov.au...violations.html

2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

6. Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods.

7. Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method.

8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

----------

Edit: Extract from the archives. 16th June 2014

Excuse my ignorance but weren't the players given the opportunity to enter a guilty plea and given a penalty which would have seen them able to play this season and by the NAB cup? Now, faced with suspension, are demanding if suspended, for it to be backdated?

Haven't they missed the whole point of a plea bargain?

I haven't been following the whole ordeal very closely, again apologies if I'm totally off the mark.

Pretty much on the mark. But more importantly, it seems from the threat, that the players are now expecting to be suspended. That is a quantum leap.

this feels like game-day nerves/hope. But so much riding on it...

Yes, a better interpretation.

Given the article this morning that players will 'boycott NAB cup if AFL do not guarantee suspensions are not backdated to September' strongly suggests they expect suspension as penalties. So they either:

- wear them and cannot play for suspension duration, or

- appeal and they cannot play while under appeal

If suspended I reckon the players won't appeal (sorry Dees2014) as the appeal may take longer than the suspension time.

So, expect a depleted bombers team for some time in 2015!! Justice will finally be done (and seen to be done) I hope.

Would players be paid by Ess if they appeal? Then the law suits will come if suspeneded.

Would players be paid by Ess if they appeal? Then the law suits will come if suspeneded.

EFC seem to have written their own rules about payment while suspended when they gave Hird $1m to go play in France for a year. As a comparison Saad didn't get paid, (he was delisted). But players suspend for on-field misdemeanors by the AFL Tribunal get paid. So probably EFC will pay players while suspended.

Can't see the players being silly enough to appeal if they can't play while it is in the pipeline and resolution may take longer than the suspensions themselves.

Given what our far more learned (than me) DL posters have said law suits will start flying left, right and centre! But if the players take their medicine all that will be in the background and football can finally get back to being about football.

On the 'boycott' thing do the AFL have the power to guarantee backdating...wouldn't it be up to ASADA to negotiate not the AFL. I suspect that ASADA would be in no mood to play that game given the merry-go-round EFC have given them.

I'm gobsmacked at how arrogant and brazen the 'boycott' threat is. Any respect or sympathy I had for EFC players has now gone out the window. Man up guys and take your medicine (if found guilty that is)

Isn't that what got them into this trouble in the first place?

Just remember everyone we are talking about small consequences here only, the suspension of players who were misled about a drug program. They will still be paid and everyone would probably acknowledge that they weren't deliberately and knowingly taking banned drugs. That of course doesn't make them innocent under WADA.

The real consequences are the possible health issues, that hopefully will not occur, to players and their future children. One can only hope that there are no such issues, or the sh-t will really hit the fan and then there will be something real to be upset about.

Re the post that appeared very briefly on the Bf HTB (Hot Topic Board) late last night before being removed by a Moderator; this from the Moderator:

It was removed from the HTB as there are serious implications for the person involved. the information should not be available at this time.

The person who made the post has been a regular poster (allegedly a Blues supporter) and his posts have been rational and well expressed. He appears to have gone to ground.

Just to repeat myself, the post appeared to be part of ASADA's evidence to the current tribunal placing TB4 on the premises. You would assume that the players have received a copy of this evidence and the poster has a mate who is one of the 34 charged. He (the poster) received a copy - probably electronic as the post appeared to be a 'cut and paste'.

...........and everyone would probably acknowledge that they weren't deliberately and knowingly taking banned drugs..............

not sure i would agree about the everyone, redleg

i certainly have my doubts, i don't believe a good many of the players were simply duped

not sure i would agree about the everyone, redleg

i certainly have my doubts, i don't believe a good many of the players were simply duped

That makes two of us dc.

Just waiting for 2.15

This site has shown some of the most interesting and conflicting debate of the issues. Thanks for all who contribute.

I was talking to an Essendon supporter last night who is still adamant that this will all disappear as the afl cannot operate with Essendon rubbed out and if more than 2 players are rubbed out that will be the outcome.

He was of course selectively using his understanding to justify his position. He says Hird is guilty and not supported by the club. He says that the AFL may lose some fed government funding but would pay that back and continue without ASADA. He says Workcover havent acted as there is nothing for them to act on He seems to think what many have expressed that until you see an actual injection of the actual drug as JP outlined it is all [censored]. He may be delusional.

I congratulated him on his strong support for his club and hoped that he understood that the national and international impacts of drugs in sport is the issue here and may be bigger than Essendon. I hope that he and other EFC supporters are not lost to our game if the consequences of the actions are totally revealed and an Arnmstrong like admission is finally revealed.

Can you wear it during the day? Or is it another euphemism for a French letter?

24/7 MD and proudly!!

Less than 2 hours now....

Don The Sash indeed!!

24/7 MD and proudly!!

SWYL could be misconstrued as how one drinks. Not me, I'm a snifter man.

PS: The knight hood, on which head is it worn?

SWYL could be misconstrued as how one drinks. Not me, I'm a snifter man.

PS: The knight hood, on which head is it worn?

The larger head MD...

I enjoy wine woman & song in no particular order btw

The larger head MD...

I enjoy wine woman & song in no particular order btw

Still none the wiser.

And song can be so overrated.

Appeal dismissed...

Apparent'y hird is in the USA on a "Business trip" looking for a new job already?????

love the commitment he has for the club going overseas when he should be coaching...

Appeal dismissed...

Two sweet words rjay

2:34pm:

James Hird got lots of legal advice .... most very expensive ... some gratuitious ... but all wrong. Now we can turn to the real issues.

— Richard Ings (@ringsau)

January 30, 2015

2:33pm:

"We will continue working out the tribunal process" Paul Brasher, Essendon Vice-President.

— Seb Costello (@SebCostello9)

January 30, 2015

2:32pm: If Hird wants to proceed with the matter, he will need to seek leave to appeal to the High Court.

2:24pm: Appeal dismissed, and appellant must pay respondent's costs.

The judgment was unanimous.

2:21pm: Hird and players were all legally represented at the interviews.

2:21pm: There was no unlawful disclosure of information to the AFL in the interview of 34 players or Hird.

There was no procedural unfairness.

Argument about lack of free consent rejected.

2:20pm: The court rejects Hird's arguemnt because the decisionwas authorised by the ASADA Act and the NAD scheme.

Legislative scheme encoruaged ASADA to act with sporting bodies.

2:17pm: BREAKING: James Hird's appeal has been dismissed.

2:15pm: The gavel is knocked, and the court is in session.

2:14pm: There is only one representative of Essendon on hand today, the club's chief marketing officer Justin Rodski.

2:11pm:

FROM:- http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/live-james-hird-v-asada-appeal-judgment-20150130-1320bt.html