If they are so sure they are innocent they should just play!

thats exactly what Smith says...and I agree...

but we all know otherwise...lol

What im constantly noting is the continued attempts by Essendon to orchestrate timelines.

Another ruse in this regard is whereby theres a constant reference to sanctions being firstly discounted severely and then backdated to their last game.

The only way a 6 month ban can be served up is whereby conditions are satisfied that WADA would reduce the penalty by up to the maximum 3/4 ( 75%) I.E 2 Years to 6 months. But this only occurs when firstly the accused comes clean, admits guilt, doesnt hinder the proceedings and essentially 'helps' by divulging all. As none of the Bombers ( remaining at windy Hill )seem to have done such I cant see where any reduction comes into play.

Also theres the other ploy of referring this fictional backdating back to the last game and this being the concern and butting point for the players and why they wont budge. Well unless I have been reading it wrong all along suspensions get pinged from the issuance of Infringement Notices and that would be Nov.

So we see it that time and time again Essendon are trying to pull the wall over everones eyes

I cant see how anything less than a Year from last Nov can be given...and thats the BEST case scenario for Essendon !!

I wont be bb

get ready for six months from mid October 2014.

I wont be bb

get ready for six months from mid October 2014.

theres no provision for this though OD...even if they thought they could get away with it.

I think Essendons problem is that if all the paperwork is provided they may be more guilty. (other chargers to be added)

That's what i mean.

If Essendon were truly innocent the paperwork would have been presented 2 years ago...

theres no provision for this though OD...even if they thought they could get away with it.

We will see bb

We will see bb

But OD there is no mechanism within WADAs framework of determinations to afford the outcome you suggest and seemingly the naughty ones might bear .

What the AFL think is irrelevant....and they too are about to learn some hard lessons and not before time

Oh the humanity.

The soon to be renamed "Essenburn disaster"

Edit:- Typo+

BB, I'm not exactly sure but think the suspension/future penalties may be from date of Show Cause Notice (not Infraction Notice). The SCN's issued in June were retracted due to legal action by EFC and Hird. The 2nd SCN's were issued late September after the Middleton, J decision. Hence September being the start date of 'provisional suspension'. Our legal eagles may shed more light on this.

BB, I'm not exactly sure but think the suspension/future penalties may be from date of Show Cause Notice (not Infraction Notice). The SCN's issued in June were retracted due to legal action by EFC and Hird. The 2nd SCN's were issued late September after the Middleton, J decision. Hence September being the start date of 'provisional suspension'. Our legal eagles may shed more light on this.

let's be generous then and make it 12 months from june

BB, I'm not exactly sure but think the suspension/future penalties may be from date of Show Cause Notice (not Infraction Notice). The SCN's issued in June were retracted due to legal action by EFC and Hird. The 2nd SCN's were issued late September after the Middleton, J decision. Hence September being the start date of 'provisional suspension'. Our legal eagles may shed more light on this.

Now Im getting myself muddled also:

But I take from the following:

Commencement of Ineligibility Period

Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall

start on the date of the hearing decision providing for

Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date

Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any

period of Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or

voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total

period of Ineligibility imposed.

Its possible maybe to read it that suspensions begin from the time of the hearing ? ( tribunal )

BB, I'm not exactly sure but think the suspension/future penalties may be from date of Show Cause Notice (not Infraction Notice). The SCN's issued in June were retracted due to legal action by EFC and Hird. The 2nd SCN's were issued late September after the Middleton, J decision. Hence September being the start date of 'provisional suspension'. Our legal eagles may shed more light on this.

Further reading suggests the following. Bans arent backdated per se. Its bordering pedantic but the bans start from the handing down from the Tribunal of the penalty. You are then to take away the time incurred having been provisionally suspended. It sort of adds up to the same thing but its very important that the ban actually( officially) starts from the tribunals decision.

you are of course correct in the noting of SCN's

What im constantly noting is the continued attempts by Essendon to orchestrate timelines.

Another ruse in this regard is whereby theres a constant reference to sanctions being firstly discounted severely and then backdated to their last game.

The only way a 6 month ban can be served up is whereby conditions are satisfied that WADA would reduce the penalty by up to the maximum 3/4 ( 75%) I.E 2 Years to 6 months. But this only occurs when firstly the accused comes clean, admits guilt, doesnt hinder the proceedings and essentially 'helps' by divulging all. As none of the Bombers ( remaining at windy Hill )seem to have done such I cant see where any reduction comes into play.

Also theres the other ploy of referring this fictional backdating back to the last game and this being the concern and butting point for the players and why they wont budge. Well unless I have been reading it wrong all along suspensions get pinged from the issuance of Infringement Notices and that would be Nov.

So we see it that time and time again Essendon are trying to pull the wall over everones eyes

I cant see how anything less than a Year from last Nov can be given...and thats the BEST case scenario for Essendon !!

Hubris is a deadly infection, BB, and it seems Essendon have it in a big way ...

This is the 3rd season that this self righteous club has hijacked.

Further reading suggests the following. Bans arent backdated per se. Its bordering pedantic but the bans start from the handing down from the Tribunal of the penalty. You are then to take away the time incurred having been provisionally suspended. It sort of adds up to the same thing but its very important that the ban actually( officially) starts from the tribunals decision.

you are of course correct in the noting of SCN's

and then just when you thought it was safe to . . BANG! . . another hit on the head with the WADA bat!!

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

I f more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are

found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation

during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall

impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss

of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or

other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed

upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping

rule violation.

so 34 players would mean the club should get a nasty little surprise as well, good good

and then just when you thought it was safe to . . BANG! . . another hit on the head with the WADA bat!!

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

I f more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are

found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation

during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall

impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss

of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or

other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed

upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping

rule violation.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Based on that bb if they have told the afl they wanted to start a voluntary suspension then the summer months will be credited as per the final line.

I'd like to see the rules amended so that provisional/voluntary suspension only counts if in season.

and then just when you thought it was safe to . . BANG! . . another hit on the head with the WADA bat!!

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

I f more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are

found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation

during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall

impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g., loss

of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or

other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed

upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping

rule violation.

I've seen this spoken about a few times on the forums, but it's never mentioned in the media.

Are we missing something on its relevance or are the journos ignoring it?

why is it that I have this sick feeling that this mob are either going to get off or receive a slap over the wrist.

I know that ASADA appears to be holding the line on it all......but the way professional sport is conducted just makes me very cynical.

although we all have a clear opinion on the morality and ethics in this sordid affair it seems that as so often happens in professional sport the processes and investigations have been flawed.

at the end of the day we have big money, politics and sports administrators ...all providing a recipe for a soft outcome. Things that trouble me are-

-there has been no positive drug finding just a lot of circumstantial evidence (this did not stop the Armstrong case, but it did take over 10 years to rub him out-and only after confessions of Landis, Tyler-Hamilton and others)

-the affair has been dragging on for ever. it is only natural that all parties want an end to this. that means compromise and concessions.

-politics and deal-making pervades all professional sports administration

-professional administrative bodies are hopelessly conflicted.

-AFL power brokers and Gill in particular are natural deal-makers.

-the AFL cannot afford to punish EFC in any way that weakens the competition or threatens the existence of the club.

-big money is pervasive and will always influence decisions.

-there seems a lot of sympathy for the players from all quarters.

Somebody reassure me that my logic is flawed or that my cynicism is unwarranted. Or point me in the direction of a good psychotherapist.

EH

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/essendon-must-come-to-the-realisation-it-is-not-above-the-law/story-e6frg7uo-1227215280339?sv=70e0b1b89afddd5b2cb31a50fc968106#.VNqBtquPqK8.twitter

And this from the comments section tops it all off:

PeterMax 51 minutes ago

I still have seen nothing to convince me that this attack on James Hird and Essendon was anything but a very dishonourable tactic by Labor, as presented by Jason Clare and Kate Lundy to divert attention from the woes of Julia Gillard.

If this can be proved it is to be hoped that action for compensation can be launched against Labor for serious and unforgivable damage to Essendon and Hird

FMD!!

And this from the comments section tops it all off:

PeterMax 51 minutes ago

I still have seen nothing to convince me that this attack on James Hird and Essendon was anything but a very dishonourable tactic by Labor, as presented by Jason Clare and Kate Lundy to divert attention from the woes of Julia Gillard.

If this can be proved it is to be hoped that action for compensation can be launched against Labor for serious and unforgivable damage to Essendon and Hird

FMD!!

Hahaha that is amazing.

One thing is for sure - at the end of the tribunal they must release ALL the evidence.

The public needs to see how and when the bombers cheated.

I really think the AFL and essendon think the outcome won't effect the 2015 season ie 6 month sentences backdated to September.

Surely if you have 17 players at the tribunal you would start activating the contingency plan and have the top up player start training with you in the pre season. Has this occurred with the vfl bombers and they will just top that up??

My mind boggles how late they plan to leave the start of top up players to the club!!

"Our view is any athlete competing during their provisional suspension and prior to a final decision by a sport tribunal, has not respected their obligation under the World Anti-Doping Code and should not be entitled to a credit for the provisional suspension.

"The World Anti-Doping Code is very clear in this respect and our duty is to ensure sports comply with their responsibilities to the code."

This is a quote from ASADA (http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-issues-warning-to-essendon-players-with-infraction-notices-20150211-13byoj.html)

which looks like a clear dig at Watson and fletcher saying you ignored the suspension thus we feel you are not entitled to back dating

Backdated suspensions would make ASADA, the AFL and the system look like a joke, and as much as that's exactly what Essendon have been trying to do the entire time i highly doubt they will be shown too much mercy. 2 year bans and the club should be buried.