That was never my issue. I just couldn't believe that we were the only club being investigated.

Integrity 'Redleg'...remind me again. Who is the chairman of the AFL commission???

Integrity 'Redleg'...remind me again. Who is the chairman of the AFL commission???

If we had have had just one Melbourne supporter on the commission, then it's my belief that we would never have been investigated ... and the commission was originally put in place so as to eliminate any bias towards any of the clubs.

Aren't there a couple of Essendon supporters on the current commission? Or is it just Bill Kelty?

That was never my issue. I just couldn't believe that we were the only club being investigated.

I've had various friends & acquaintances freely admit that their footy teams have tanked on various occasions ... this "opening up" happened a number of years ago as well. It took a bit of cajoling and persuasion but most came clean.

Pies, Hawks, Blues, Tigers, Bombers, Doggies & Saints all tanked at various times. It's only the Cats & North who never tanked of the Victorian teams by my reckoning (I stand corrected on that)

I've always taken a keen interest in tanking because of my interest in American sports (where tanking has been freely practiced and still goes on) Again, tanking comes under the banner of "people are the same all over"

I remember the "Bryce Gibbs cup" like it was yesterday ... 1/14 Essendon were playing the 2/13 Blues - the match ended up in a draw. Funny about that.

As for all the other dodgy goings on in the years prior to 2006, it's now a case of out of sight, out of mind (9 priority picks were handed out within a 3 year stretch - 2003-2005) After 2005 the AFL changed the rules on how a priority pick was to be awarded ... I wonder why?

If I was running the ASADA case, I would open by stating that I will present a large body of evidence (albeit mainly circumstantial) which should prove to the tribunal's comfortable satisfaction that the 34 players ingested a banned substance TB4. I would then make the point that the onus is on the players to provide a plausible alternative as to what occurred at their club in 2011/12 and ask where is the evidence and where are the witnesses? Where are the records of what the players were given? Where are the people who ran the programme, supplied the material billed to the club? Where is the chemist who compounded that material? Where are Dank? Robinson? Charter? Hamilton and Alavi? What steps did the players and their representatives take to ensure their appearance at the tribunal to give evidence to provide a plausible alternative explanation as to the substances with which they were injected? I would ask why, if as they claim they were given vitamins, are all these people so eager to hide what was inherently such an innocent project?

If the best the players' counsel can come up with is that there's no evidence in the absence of Charter and Alavi (incidentally, both have very good reasons why they should not appear - and you can add Dank et al to that), then I suggest he has some homework to do over the weekend. If those friends of yours were referring to our mate David Grace QC, then he should pack some warm clothes for his forthcoming trip to Switzerland.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure this is not true. The onus remains on ASADA to prove to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the tribunal that the Essendon players took TB4. As far as a 'plausible alternative' goes, all the players have to do is acknowledge what is essentially conceded by everyone, and that is that no one really knows who took what or when. Multiple substances seem to have been injected but the charge is for taking TB4. Without positive tests, how does ASADA know for sure it was TB4? The onus remains on ASADA to lead enough evidence to discharge their burden of proof. You should know WJ it is not as simple as just claiming something happened and asking 'well if it wasn't that, what was it?'.

It's ASADA's job to provide witnesses and lead evidence to make its case and if they can't get the evidence of Charter and Alavi in at the hearing, then their case is that much weaker. I'm confident, though not by any means sure, that the players can beat these charges.

If we had have had just one Melbourne supporter on the commission, then it's my belief that we would never have been investigated ... and the commission was originally put in place so as to eliminate any bias towards any of the clubs.

Aren't there a couple of Essendon supporters on the current commission? Or is it just Bill Kelty?

The Evans influence is still very strong 'Macca', and there is an underlying push to have David take up his rightful seat at the table when the times right.

I don't disagree with you Redleg ... my comment about us being "an easy head to kick" was more my perception of the public's view.

Again, we had another situation where the footy public were being fed by the media because the media knew what the footy public wanted to read and hear. With regards to the tanking investigation there was very little balance being shown by the media but also, by the footy public.

And that lack of balance extended to Melbourne supporters as well. Some here still refuse point blank to believe that tanking was widely practiced by various clubs.

I disagree with putting the blame on the public, it's the same as blaming soundbite politics on the public - the media has a critical role in forming the majority of the publics opinion and I can guarantee if Rohan Connelly, Mark Robinson, Chip Le Grand et al (including I believe the guy in charge of Fox Footy) were Melbourne supporters the tanking stuff wouldn't have gained anywhere near as much traction or public outrage.

I do agree with you on the point about thinking the worst of overseas athletes while giving ours the benefit of the doubt, I think that's because we've never really had a massive drugs in sport controversy (until this one at least). We were always able to kid ourselves that our Aussies were cleanskins playing by the rules and everyone else is taking shortcuts. I think this partly plays into our national psyche of rooting for the battler/underdog and fighting against the odds etc.

Edited December 14, 201410 yr by Dr. Gonzo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure this is not true. The onus remains on ASADA to prove to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the tribunal that the Essendon players took TB4. As far as a 'plausible alternative' goes, all the players have to do is acknowledge what is essentially conceded by everyone, and that is that no one really knows who took what or when. Multiple substances seem to have been injected but the charge is for taking TB4. Without positive tests, how does ASADA know for sure it was TB4? The onus remains on ASADA to lead enough evidence to discharge their burden of proof. You should know WJ it is not as simple as just claiming something happened and asking 'well if it wasn't that, what was it?'.

It's ASADA's job to provide witnesses and lead evidence to make its case and if they can't get the evidence of Charter and Alavi in at the hearing, then their case is that much weaker. I'm confident, though not by any means sure, that the players can beat these charges.

There's enough circumstantial evidence that they're stuffed (or at least should be if this is whitewashed). They have evidence TB4 was purchased/compunded and kept on site. They have players signing forms agreeing to using Thymosin and evidence that the frequency of injections correlates to the info given to Dank about frequencies for TB4. With that in mind, it should be up to the players to prove that what they took wasn't TB4 - otherwise drug cheats will be able to get away with it by wilful ignorance and dodgy record keeping.

The Evans influence is still very strong 'Macca', and there is an underlying push to have David take up his rightful seat at the table when the times right.

I think you'll find that there's also another very influential person on the commission who is an Essendon supporter (apart from Kelty)

Everyone has many biases - it's those who hide their biases that are the concern.

I disagree with putting the blame on the public, it's the same as blaming soundbite politics on the public - the media has a critical role in forming the majority of the publics opinion and I can guarantee if Rohan Connelly, Mark Robinson, Chip Le Grand et al (including I believe the guy in charge of Fox Footy) were Melbourne supporters the tanking stuff wouldn't have gained anywhere near as much traction or public outrage.

I do agree with you on the point about thinking the worst of overseas athletes while giving ours the benefit of the doubt, I think that's because we've never really had a massive drugs in sport controversy (until this one at least). We were always able to kid ourselves that our Aussies were cleanskins playing by the rules and everyone else is taking shortcuts. I think this partly plays into our national psyche of rooting for the battler/underdog and fighting against the odds etc.

The footy public should have the wherewithal and the free thinking ability to be able to make their own appraisal of the situation ... if they're "media driven", they shouldn't be. I'm sure you're not and I'm certainly not media driven. Each individual has a chance to make up their own mind - if they choose not to do that they open themselves up for criticism.

Anyone with any sense would know that Connolly and Robinson have been hopelessly compromised from the beginning. In fact, most of the journo's have been compromised - they don't want to be biting the hand that feeds them. The public should know this too and I believe most do - so, it all gets back to my original point ... here

I'm exceptionally cynical about most things written in the print media Doc - it's been that way for me for a long time too.

I've long held suspicions about PED's in the AFL, NRL, soccer the world over, NBA, NHL, MLB & the NFL. In reality, all sports where the testing for PED's hasn't been of a thorough nature.

I also believe that there is a correlation between taking "recreational" drugs & PED's - somewhat so anyway. Let's not forget that for a 5 year stretch just prior to the Essendon story breaking there were 69 players who tested positive to recreational drugs - and that's just the ones that they caught.

Track & field and cycling are looked upon with disdain by many people these days but have a guess which sports do the most testing?

People are the same all over - where there's big money at stake, you'll see lying, cheating, greed and all the other human traits that contribute to the wrong thing being done. We're no different in this country.

Ben cousins was never caught...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure this is not true. The onus remains on ASADA to prove to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the tribunal that the Essendon players took TB4. As far as a 'plausible alternative' goes, all the players have to do is acknowledge what is essentially conceded by everyone, and that is that no one really knows who took what or when. Multiple substances seem to have been injected but the charge is for taking TB4. Without positive tests, how does ASADA know for sure it was TB4? The onus remains on ASADA to lead enough evidence to discharge their burden of proof. You should know WJ it is not as simple as just claiming something happened and asking 'well if it wasn't that, what was it?'.

It's ASADA's job to provide witnesses and lead evidence to make its case and if they can't get the evidence of Charter and Alavi in at the hearing, then their case is that much weaker. I'm confident, though not by any means sure, that the players can beat these charges.

Then they'll be guilty. The chain of emails, ordering, waivers, Dank's admission to an AGE journalist etc etc will all serve to show at the very least strong circumstantial evidence. What hasn't actually been brought up is the p;layers performance. They grew massively, improved massively during the period when they were said to be taking them. They had injuries consistent with HGR use (soft tissue), they embarked on a cutting edge program, they had no or little oversight of a charlatan and opposition teams were complaining to the AFL about the strength of the Ess players.

They deserve to be banned for life. For stupidity. For ignorance. For taking unknown substances.

Zero sympathy except for one or two junior players. Jobe Watson and Dustin Fletcher should have know better, So should Stanton, and the other 30 or so players.

The team should be banned for 2 years and the players as well.

They have fought, denied, obfuscated and obstructed at every step of the way, They are farked. And so they should be.

FOr the 95% of clean athletes, the standing of Australian sport, the faith of the public and the eyes of the sporting world, Ess deserve the book thrown at them.

Ben cousins was never caught...

No he wasn't but if we were to point the finger at him, we'd have to point the finger in all sorts of directions.

I refuse to believe we went from Justin Charles to Essendon with one giant leap. There's got to have been some stuff going on in between ... however, the chances are we'll never know either way for sure.

Rohan Conolly at lunchtime today

"I believe the players will be exonerated and James Hird should be free to coach as he already has served his time....."

Fcuk i hope these crap journalists all have to eat all their cheap words after WADA are finished with this case

WADA not the AFL kangaroo Court

Bloody WADA Conolly you tool...

If we had have had just one Melbourne supporter on the commission, then it's my belief that we would never have been investigated ... and the commission was originally put in place so as to eliminate any bias towards any of the clubs.

Aren't there a couple of Essendon supporters on the current commission? Or is it just Bill Kelty?

The thing to remember is that both the AFL and EFC are irrelevant to the outcomes here. It will be ultimately be up to WADA and CAS, both under the juristiction of SWISS law. Thankfully, the mascinations and politics of this in Australia will be irrelevant, and they will get suitable punishment.

Edited December 14, 201410 yr by Dees2014

What annoys me is that everyone seems so happy charters and old mate won't be in the hearing, it's good to see essemdon trying to prove their innocence

Once again looking for an asada mistake rather than trying to prove they are innocent, regardless of the result they will always be cheats in my eyes.

Having said that I think they will get done and go down hard one way or another

No he wasn't but if we were to point the finger at him, we'd have to point the finger in all sorts of directions.

I refuse to believe we went from Justin Charles to Essendon with one giant leap. There's got to have been some stuff going on in between ... however, the chances are we'll never know either way for sure.

We wouldn't have to look much further than the culture at his club 'Macca' going way back.

Then they'll be guilty. The chain of emails, ordering, waivers, Dank's admission to an AGE journalist etc etc will all serve to show at the very least strong circumstantial evidence. What hasn't actually been brought up is the p;layers performance. They grew massively, improved massively during the period when they were said to be taking them. They had injuries consistent with HGR use (soft tissue), they embarked on a cutting edge program, they had no or little oversight of a charlatan and opposition teams were complaining to the AFL about the strength of the Ess players.

Isn't this what it's all about: take banned drugs that change your physiology so that you gain an unfair advantage over your competitors!

Sometimes known as cheating!!

The thing to remember is that both the AFL and EFC are irrelevant to the outcomes here. It will be ultimately be up to WADA and CAS, both under the juristiction of SWISS law. Thankfully, the mascinations and politics of this in Australia will be irrelevant, and they will get suitable punishment.

Oh yeah, I'm fully aware of the procedures involved - my take is that Essendon and it's players are in for a rude awakening. If that happens it might have the effect of bringing the people who want to turn a blind eye into the real world of PED's.

There's also a reasonable chance that the penalties will be relatively light - again, the aftermath of that type of scenario will be an interesting one.

The other, medium to long term issue is that as the players who took these copious quantities of injections move on with their lives, they'll almost certainly be getting a fair bit of legal advice on whether they'd have grounds to take some sort of action against those who administered and recommended these "mystery supplements"

The whole saga might carry on for a number of years.

The one sentence I haven't heard said in all of this time is, "we are innocent because................."

Not one positive statement of proof of innocence since it began.

There's enough circumstantial evidence that they're stuffed (or at least should be if this is whitewashed). They have evidence TB4 was purchased/compunded and kept on site. They have players signing forms agreeing to using Thymosin and evidence that the frequency of injections correlates to the info given to Dank about frequencies for TB4. With that in mind, it should be up to the players to prove that what they took wasn't TB4 - otherwise drug cheats will be able to get away with it by wilful ignorance and dodgy record keeping.

It should never be up to the accused to prove their innocence. The system should always be innocent until proven guilty no matter how heinous the crime or how much you hate the person on trial.

If ASADA can't prove it, then the players shouldn't be punished. Of course, if they can prove it, then the bans should be weighty and reflective of the seriousness of the offence.

It should never be up to the accused to prove their innocence. The system should always be innocent until proven guilty no matter how heinous the crime or how much you hate the person on trial.

If ASADA can't prove it, then the players shouldn't be punished. Of course, if they can prove it, then the bans should be weighty and reflective of the seriousness of the offence.

well regardless of "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty under proven innocent" arguments the fact here is

1] you can be found guilty based on circumstantial evidence (as you can be in a court of law)

2] the weight of proof in this jurisdiction is less onerous than that of a criminal court

how that plays out remains to be seen

This is all a pr exercise.

When they are found guilty everyone will say

Asada are hopeless

Afl are corrupt

There was no evidence

This is a joke

We have no faith

It wasnt the players fault

Etc etc.

The club will sell hope for longer and therefore survive

Itll be off to the international court of arbitration for sport no matter what happens

Then we will see all the evidence

But still asada will be portrayed as hopeless etc

It should never be up to the accused to prove their innocence. The system should always be innocent until proven guilty no matter how heinous the crime or how much you hate the person on trial.

If ASADA can't prove it, then the players shouldn't be punished. Of course, if they can prove it, then the bans should be weighty and reflective of the seriousness of the offence.

Well it is and thats what the AFL and its clubs have signed up for. So get used to it.

For those who might be interested here's a short article about 3 of the 4 big sports in the States and their individual drug codes ... the article also includes those athletes who fall under the Olympics drug code (the full Wada code) The differences are quite stark

It should be remembered that the AFL are signed up with Wada along similar lines to the Olympic athletes. Not sure whether the AFL players can be tested 24 hours a day, 365 days a year but I'm guessing they can be.

Sports drug testing policies: NFL, NBA, NHL, Olympics

NHL (National Hockey League) testing occurs randomly up to three times a year. and is done through urine analysis. Testing takes place on teams off days during the regular season. No testing is done during the playoffs or off season.

PENALTIES -- NBA
First Offense: 5 game suspension and mandatory attendance in the leagues anti-doping program
Second Incidence: 10 game suspension, continued counseling.
Third time: 25 game suspension, continued counseling.
Fourth: Minimum 2 year suspension.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) now has one of the strictest drug testing protocols in all of sport. Olympic athletes can be randomly tested 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, no exceptions.

PENALTIES -- OLYMPICS
First incidence: If an athlete tests positive they are given a two year ban from all Olympic competitions.
Second incidence: Lifetime ban.

For those who might be interested here's a short article about 3 of the 4 big sports in the States and their individual drug codes ... the article also includes those athletes who fall under the Olympics drug code (the full Wada code) The differences are quite stark

It should be remembered that the AFL are signed up with Wada along similar lines to the Olympic athletes. Not sure whether the AFL players can be tested 24 hours a day, 365 days a year but I'm guessing they can be.

Sports drug testing policies: NFL, NBA, NHL, Olympics

Times like the present the "WADA" might be inconvenient . . but the reality is no WADA no Govt. funding/co-operation and that means VERY big money for the AFL.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1417859.htm oops! some background on AFL/WADA code . . left out of original post.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/kennett-correct-on-afl-investment/4983476

Edited December 14, 201410 yr by deefrag

It's ASADA's job to provide witnesses and lead evidence to make its case and if they can't get the evidence of Charter and Alavi in at the hearing, then their case is that much weaker. I'm confident, though not by any means sure, that the players can beat these charges.

The evidence from Charter and Alavi can still be included, they just can't be questioned on it. But as Charters said himself, ASADA have all the evidence from him they need in the form of hard evidence (copies of mails, receipts etc. etc.).

Difficult to see how it changes anything.

There's even the argument presented here (and elsewhere), that in not joining in the Subpoena process, the players have actually weakened their case because of the negative inference that can be drawn.