How is six months already served when they have been allowed to participate in pre-season training during that time? I sure hope that Hird appeals!

Excellent point and overlooked by most!

I think they should get 2 but might get 1. Wada will appeal if only 1. I think theres still much to play out though beyond the players. Watch this space !!

Edit. A very possible outcome actually might be18 months. Dont think Wasa would appeal that. Players would but will be on deaf ears I suspect.

18 months would finish some careers and dent the rest. EFC would be in strife...

This is a possibility, but I suggest any verdict which results in significant playing time lost by the players will result in civil court action by them against Hird, Essendon and the AFL, which could go on for years. Given Hird's past behaviour, he would almost certainly vigoursly defend this which would further delay it.

Then there is Workcover which will come to a head after ASADA is finished, and will result in significant penalties for the Essendon hierarchy and Hird himself, ultimately also ending up in the appeals court.

This has a long way to go, but will result in the ultimate penalty being the same. ASADA knows it, WADA knows it, and no doubt the AFL knows it as well. Whether Essendon does or not is debatable. I have no doubt at all that the Hirds know it - that is why they are fighting it every inch of the way, and using every delaying tactic in the book, just as Armstrong did - but sadly for them, a very similar fate awaits the Golden Boy J. Hird.

Interestingly, I think the opposite.

ASADA has had no choice politically but to take some action. My suspicions are that TB4 is their best chance which is why they've gone with that one over all the others. Given that it appears that the evidence is non-physical (ie, not a positive drug test result, but matters such as interviews, purchase orders and chains of custody), getting a case on each substance would be difficult, time consuming and potentially very arguable. I have no idea whether ASADA's case is watertight or not - but I can see the possibility of a less than solid case being pursued for political reasons. I suspect ASADA would rather try and fail than be seen not to be pursuing the matter at all.

If they catch them for one PED or ten they still only receive to two years so rather than bring in other evidence that may cause doubt just run with the one that will get the guilty verdict

I think this was an issue when the SCN were issues as EFC was complaining and wanting all the evidence obtained not just what ASADA was going to rely on. I think ASADA refused to provide it

The fate of the EFC supplement scandal seems a bit of foregone conclusion kind of like Abbott as PM. A few people have opinions either way but the majority of people have lost interest and will just wait while things run their course.

Can't see how it could be, EFC have purchased and paid for PEDs (as per the invoice evidence) and there sports scientist has picked them up. The excuse they will damaged and in through them out is also as bad as the dog eat my home work

With six months already served they'd basically be given a year off and back for 2016 (albeit with no pre-season training under their belt).

My God, half a club missing a pre-season. C & B would go into over-drive. It's the ultimate golden ticket!

Can't see how it could be, EFC have purchased and paid for PEDs (as per the invoice evidence) and there sports scientist has picked them up. The excuse they will damaged and in through them out is also as bad as the dog eat my home work

Just thinking out loud here (albeit in print) if the players argue successfully that they did not attempt to take PED's and that they are gullible innocents (which I doubt) and miraculously get off, can a more severe penalty be applied to the club? ie 2 years ban for the club or better still 2 years ban for the club for each breach. I think if the players get off the club should face a more severe penalty as they are then more guilty if you know what I mean.

Just thinking out loud here (albeit in print) if the players argue successfully that they did not attempt to take PED's and that they are gullible innocents (which I doubt) and miraculously get off, can a more severe penalty be applied to the club? ie 2 years ban for the club or better still 2 years ban for the club for each breach. I think if the players get off the club should face a more severe penalty as they are then more guilty if you know what I mean.

If no players are found guilty then presumably nothing would be done (at least by the AFL) about the club since team sanctions appear to be triggered by a finding against 2 or more players. The situation you envisage might be possible if players were found guilty but no bans were issued because they are all 'victims'. Probably the best hope for action against the club would be through the channel jnr has been emphasising, i.e. Workcover. But one of the resident lawyers might have a better picture of all this.

What I do know is that if they (players and club; players or club) are cleared, the din of self-righteousness from Windy Hill is going to be so loud that I'm glad I don't live in Melbourne. And little Jimmy will be able to book his halo in to have all the dents repaired.

If no players are found guilty then presumably nothing would be done (at least by the AFL) about the club since team sanctions appear to be triggered by a finding against 2 or more players. The situation you envisage might be possible if players were found guilty but no bans were issued because they are all 'victims'. Probably the best hope for action against the club would be through the channel jnr has been emphasising, i.e. Workcover. But one of the resident lawyers might have a better picture of all this.

What I do know is that if they (players and club; players or club) are cleared, the din of self-righteousness from Windy Hill is going to be so loud that I'm glad I don't live in Melbourne. And little Jimmy will be able to book his halo in to have all the dents repaired.

JD I did not say they were innocent, merely found not guilty of attempting to take PED's.

What I did not clarify was the finding being based on them successfully arguing that they were duped by the club. If that were the case then I would expect the club to be banned.

I am hypothesizing, but I imagine it is a possible outcome. And one that many would accept.

JD I did not say they were innocent, merely found not guilty of attempting to take PED's.

What I did not clarify was the finding being based on them successfully arguing that they were duped by the club. If that were the case then I would expect the club to be banned.

I am hypothesizing, but I imagine it is a possible outcome. And one that many would accept.

This line that has been perpetuated by the Hird machine is plain nonsense.

For the umpteenth time, players are responsible for what goes into their bodies. They didn't check with their doctor and if they did he (somewhat belatedly) says he was concerned over what they were taking and the quantities they were taking.

Every Olympian in the world caught doping would blame their coach or doctor. Lance armstrong would blame his coach.

IT CAN"T WORK THAT WAY. Players are responsible. Full stop.

JD I did not say they were innocent, merely found not guilty of attempting to take PED's.

What I did not clarify was the finding being based on them successfully arguing that they were duped by the club. If that were the case then I would expect the club to be banned.

I am hypothesizing, but I imagine it is a possible outcome. And one that many would accept.

Hence my second sentence. But that would rely on a finding that they had taken PEDs. If they're "found not guilty of attempting to take PEDs" then presumably nothing will fall to Essendon to be sanctioned (banned) for.

Assuming they are given credit for the time served since the infraction notices, 18 months would take then through to 14 May 2016 (18 months after infraction notices).

In 2014 this would make them miss the first 8 rounds, and in 2013 it would be the first 7 rounds. (2015 is different due to the cricket world cup)

If this is the penalty, it will be interesting to see how they are allowed to manage their list.

Hence my second sentence. But that would rely on a finding that they had taken PEDs. If they're "found not guilty of attempting to take PEDs" then presumably nothing will fall to Essendon to be sanctioned (banned) for.

Essendon are guilty of breaching rule 8 from ASADA

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.

I think there is little doubt that Essendon are guilty of breaching the code, rule 8. That does not automatically imply guilt on the players. Yes they are responsible for everything that enters their bodies but in a scenario where players were advised by medical professionals and all levels of their club that everything was ok, then it may be possible. Don't get me wrong I think the players are guilty, I am merely stating a possibilty.

My hypothesis was based on the players potentially arguing successfully that they were duped.

Edit : added successfully to last sentence.

This is a possibility, but I suggest any verdict which results in significant playing time lost by the players will result in civil court action by them against Hird, Essendon and the AFL, which could go on for years. Given Hird's past behaviour, he would almost certainly vigoursly defend this which would further delay it.

Then there is Workcover which will come to a head after ASADA is finished, and will result in significant penalties for the Essendon hierarchy and Hird himself, ultimately also ending up in the appeals court.

This has a long way to go, but will result in the ultimate penalty being the same. ASADA knows it, WADA knows it, and no doubt the AFL knows it as well. Whether Essendon does or not is debatable. I have no doubt at all that the Hirds know it - that is why they are fighting it every inch of the way, and using every delaying tactic in the book, just as Armstrong did - but sadly for them, a very similar fate awaits the Golden Boy J. Hird.

I fully expect this to all go totally ape shlt/pear shaped...once the tribunal announces the penalties. I come from the standpoint that at no real moment has the club ( for mine ) actually understood the climate and world it was now in. It to me still harbours notions of 'deals' and stuff. I think EFC and indeed the numbskull players think some negotiated settlement will manufacture. Some rude shocks awake. The Windy Hill fan club etc all think some rap on the knuckles and a bad boy fine might manifest itself where as the proper reality suggests a ban of at least a year ( probably ) more

Happy to be redirected in my thinking but I understand that once any ban is invoked, its in force. Neither an appeal nor court action are able to set this aside ?( i.e its on , til its not ...sts ) Actions can modify it but they are still banned until otherwise advised. I think this is part of the outcomes that most parties will be ill prepared for.

If there is justice then the all in bun fight that will erupt will keep the idiot players off the paddock whilst sucking every last cent that the Windy Hill idiots have in their delusional quest to reverse their situation.

I dont thoink the AFL will need to suspend or abolish the club. It will disappear into itself..

With six months already served they'd basically be given a year off and back for 2016 (albeit with no pre-season training under their belt).

Sadly it seems there would be not much difference between a 12 month and an 18 month penalty as far as games go.

May as well give them the full 2 years ;-)

Essendon are guilty of breaching rule 8 from ASADA

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.

I think there is little doubt that Essendon are guilty of breaching the code, rule 8. That does not automatically imply guilt on the players. Yes they are responsible for everything that enters their bodies but in a scenario where players were advised by medical professionals and all levels of their club that everything was ok, then it may be possible. Don't get me wrong I think the players are guilty, I am merely stating a possibilty.

My hypothesis was based on the players potentially arguing that they were duped.

Just on this point, would any medical professionals be putting their hand up to say they advised all was ok?

Sadly it seems there would be not much difference between a 12 month and an 18 month penalty as far as games go.

May as well give them the full 2 years ;-)

yes..maybe games but they cannot train with club or be part of anything organised. They are isolated

Really good discussion on this topic. Well informed posts providing interesting opinions and diversity of views. This continues to be an amazing saga, the like of which we have never seen before and unlikely to see for a long time. A saga driven by wrong doing, shady characters, reputations, egos, greed, politics, power, money, vested interests, court room battles, desperate people fighting for reputations and futures. The only thing missing is sex. Perhaps still to come. Some unlikely couplings? What is surprising is the complete absence of shame. This tells us a lot about the underlying pathology of those involved. Narcissistic egos and shame are incompatible. Also tells us a lot about the damage one person can do when unchecked by others. Megalomania is a destructive force. There is going to be a good book coming out of this.

Really good discussion on this topic. Well informed posts providing interesting opinions and diversity of views. This continues to be an amazing saga, the like of which we have never seen before and unlikely to see for a long time. A saga driven by wrong doing, shady characters, reputations, egos, greed, politics, power, money, vested interests, court room battles, desperate people fighting for reputations and futures. The only thing missing is sex. Perhaps still to come. Some unlikely couplings? What is surprising is the complete absence of shame. This tells us a lot about the underlying pathology of those involved. Narcissistic egos and shame are incompatible. Also tells us a lot about the damage one person can do when unchecked by others. Megalomania is a destructive force. There is going to be a good book coming out of this.

dont forget the mini series !!

Just on this point, would any medical professionals be putting their hand up to say they advised all was ok?

It is a possibility, highly unlikely but a possibility.

Perhaps large amounts of money could persuade a soon to be retired Doctor or two to help the players. An Essendon Toll fund perhaps? No it won't happen, guilty guilty guilty.

For $10,000,000 I will say it was all my fault. How much would it take for Hird to fess up?

Sadly it seems there would be not much difference between a 12 month and an 18 month penalty as far as games go.

May as well give them the full 2 years ;-)

Read my post above, depending on the fixture dates, 18 months would give them an extra 8 games, more than 1/3 of a season.

Read my post above, depending on the fixture dates, 18 months would give them an extra 8 games, more than 1/3 of a season.

Id think 18 months would prove seriously invasive and manifestly annoying for the club and its players in setting up 2016....diddums !!

Of course if they ( players /club ) are stupid enough to contest say an 18 month penalty they might not like the 'bonus" that WADA would most likely win. double diddums !!

This line that has been perpetuated by the Hird machine is plain nonsense.

For the umpteenth time, players are responsible for what goes into their bodies. They didn't check with their doctor and if they did he (somewhat belatedly) says he was concerned over what they were taking and the quantities they were taking.

Every Olympian in the world caught doping would blame their coach or doctor. Lance armstrong would blame his coach.

IT CAN"T WORK THAT WAY. Players are responsible. Full stop.

JBurger, the players are responsible no doubt. But there are provisions to allow for things like an unconscious player being administered a PED in an emergency situation. This would be very rare and would not apply to the organised pharmacological experiment that was Essendon, but it is possible.

The Essendon players have no such argument. Conscious injection or ingestion would negate most arguments regarding being duped in an ongoing manner such as Essendon.

Another possibility I presume would be to argue that a complex program of misinformation involving doctors, managers and trusted confidants all conspired to mislead the players. This is very unlikely but possible in that it may proved wiggle room for the players, if taken it would be a fatal blow to the EFC.

Essendon are guilty of breaching rule 8 from ASADA

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.

I think there is little doubt that Essendon are guilty of breaching the code, rule 8. That does not automatically imply guilt on the players. Yes they are responsible for everything that enters their bodies but in a scenario where players were advised by medical professionals and all levels of their club that everything was ok, then it may be possible. Don't get me wrong I think the players are guilty, I am merely stating a possibilty.

My hypothesis was based on the players potentially arguing successfully that they were duped.

Edit : added successfully to last sentence.

There will be doubt if the players are found not guilty of using a banned substance. Who would be found to have been administering the taking of substances found not to have been taken? Your original speculation was based on players being found "not guilty" on the grounds that they had been duped. As jnr points out, no such finding is realistically possible, but it's also not logically possible. The only finding involving "duping" would be one of guilty with penalties reduced/backdated to ensure no further time is served in suspensions. In that case attention would (should) turn immediately to Essendon, but it's presumably going to be necessary also to turn around and conduct a new hearing (possibly even a new investigation) into the club. Their guilt might be self-evident but I doubt that a finding against them will be automatic (and untroubled by the mustering of more herds - or hirds - of lawyers).

JBurger, the players are responsible no doubt. But there are provisions to allow for things like an unconscious player being administered a PED in an emergency situation. This would be very rare and would not apply to the organised pharmacological experiment that was Essendon, but it is possible.

The Essendon players have no such argument. Conscious injection or ingestion would negate most arguments regarding being duped in an ongoing manner such as Essendon.

Another possibility I presume would be to argue that a complex program of misinformation involving doctors, managers and trusted confidants all conspired to mislead the players. This is very unlikely but possible in that it may proved wiggle room for the players, if taken it would be a fatal blow to the EFC.

I think add you suggested, any "no significant fault" argument would need to show conspiracy of others to dope and mislead the players.

That the players have stood by Hird suggests they won't be able to shore this.

In addition, the letter from Reid suggests they all weren't on the same page. And the fact the players allowed themselves to be objected by a sports scientist off site and that they signed waiver forms listing incomplete information and potentially banned substances probably is enough to discredit that request.

I think they'll get 18-24 months myself.

Just thinking out loud here (albeit in print) if the players argue successfully that they did not attempt to take PED's and that they are gullible innocents (which I doubt) and miraculously get off, can a more severe penalty be applied to the club? ie 2 years ban for the club or better still 2 years ban for the club for each breach. I think if the players get off the club should face a more severe penalty as they are then more guilty if you know what I mean.

I just cannot see how that could happen as it is each and every player's responsibility to understand what is going into their body in terms of medication etc. If they did miraculously get off, I think the outcry would be deafening and appeals almost instantaneous.