When you hear someone say " in the fullness of time all will be revealed" or " I can't wait to tell my side of the story", you know that nothing will be revealed and their story won't be told..

On this subject 'Red', how much do you think AFL & Essendon will settle for to keep Hunter from going to court?

Under the WADA code as applied by CAS, the offence does not need to be proven. It is up to the defendants to prove their innocence as under most European law.. A far harder hurdle to jump over, particularly in Essendon's and Hird's case, because the circumstantial case is so strong, and there is no objective test (at least for the time being) to prove it one way or the other. ASADA knows this, WADA knows this, Hird, Essendon and the AFL know this. That is why the PR campaign has been cranked up several notches since the initial decision in a desperate attempt to keep the case out of CAS.

Once a guilty verdict comes in from CAS, then the floodgates really will open up: from Worksafe, from the players effected, from officials. The court cases will go on for years.

What makes you say that?

The player has the burden of proof if they are trying to raise one of the Code's defences (e.g. no significant fault, or they were unconscious, or one of those things). But those only happen once the offence is proven. To prove the offence ASADA/WADA keeps the burden of proof, I'm 99% sure of that, but if you can show me where it says otherwise I'm happy to stand corrected.

As the players are now innocent, the drugs and procedures (injection regime) used ok according to Essendon and the tribunal will Essendon now continue that regime?. Will Danks now bw invited back to improve record keeping and maintain this pure system?

Are they still doing whatever it takes?

http://m.theage.com.au/sport/hird-lawyer-calls-for-asada-ceo-afl-commission-and-afl-ceo-to-stand-down-20150402-1mdufy.html

"This is hypocrisy. He is continuing the public commentary in a situation where they've lost their case ... And yet, bemoaning that it has been played out in public, he continues to play it out in public. If ASADA wants to appeal it's their right to appeal if they want to. But don't talk about it, do it."

Isn't this exactly what hours food after he lost his high court bid to have the investigation ruled illegal? "I know the court said one thing but we still believe otherwise!"

http://m.theage.com.au/sport/hird-lawyer-calls-for-asada-ceo-afl-commission-and-afl-ceo-to-stand-down-20150402-1mdufy.html

"This is hypocrisy. He is continuing the public commentary in a situation where they've lost their case ... And yet, bemoaning that it has been played out in public, he continues to play it out in public. If ASADA wants to appeal it's their right to appeal if they want to. But don't talk about it, do it."

Isn't this exactly what hours food after he lost his high court bid to have the investigation ruled illegal? "I know the court said one thing but we still believe otherwise!"

Steven Amendola, the lawyer who has acted for James Hird throughout Essendon's two-year drug scandal, says Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt, his AFL opposite number Gillon McLachlan, most of the AFL Commission and AFL competition integrity manager Brett Clothier should all resign over the ordeal.

HAHAHHAHAHHA

For those of you who think Essendon are hardly done by, I urge you to read these article: Olympic athletes are rightly seriously [censored] off, and so they should be. I think it puts it all into perspective actually.

http://www.theage.co...0831-2sxoy.html

http://www.heraldsun...1-1226703731898

http://www.therunnin...yn-lewis-manou/

For those of you who think Essendon are hardly done by, I urge you to read these article: Olympic athletes are rightly seriously [censored] off, and so they should be. I think it puts it all into perspective actually.

http://www.theage.co...0831-2sxoy.html

http://www.heraldsun...1-1226703731898

http://www.therunnin...yn-lewis-manou/

ALl those links link to this forum?

ALl those links link to this forum?

Sorry, your May need to paste the URL into your internet explorer. It worked for me by double clicking initially, but not now. They are worth reading.

Can WADA sanction the AFL?

When you hear someone say " in the fullness of time all will be revealed" or " I can't wait to tell my side of the story", you know that nothing will be revealed and their story won't be told..

All too true, Redleg. There is far too much bulldust and spin in this world (Warnie syndrome you could say )

Steven Amendola, the lawyer who has acted for James Hird throughout Essendon's two-year drug scandal, says Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt, his AFL opposite number Gillon McLachlan, most of the AFL Commission and AFL competition integrity manager Brett Clothier should all resign over the ordeal.

HAHAHHAHAHHA

Yes, I don't recall his having such an unconditional view of responsibility when he was belted by Middleton and then the Full Bench of the Federal Court.

It seems that ASADA/WADA can only pursue individuals or groups of individuals, not organisations or teams (such as Essendon) Or at least, that's what I've been told (can't find a link to confirm)

I'm assuming it to be true otherwise it might have been far easier to pursue Essendon and get them banned (thus, by default, ensuing the players couldn't play for the club - they could play elsewhere you'd think)

Again, I can't confirm any of the above but can someone else? Dees2014?

Also, the AFL punished Essendon for governance issues but could they or would they punish Essendon for importing PED's? (with a view to using them)

At the time when the AFL punished Essendon for governance issues, it couldn't be confirmed that Essendon had imported PED'S with a view to using them (that area is still clouded but there is a fair bit of truth attached to Essendon importing PED's)

Edit: added last 2 paragraphs

I think the Conspiracy Theorists Validity Group or CTVG for short has caught up and is streaking ahead.

Bring it on...

I think the Conspiracy Theorists Validity Group or CTVG for short has caught up and is streaking ahead.

Bring it on...

And there lies the problem ... those who question the verdict are being lumped together as conspiracy theorists or Essendon haters when all we really want is the truth and/or the right answers.

ASADA are now being discredited in the same way that USADA were ... it's almost a carbon copy in fact. ASADA become an easy head to kick because they lost. If they are severely underfunded, that's hardly their fault.

To my way of thinking, they ended up in a battle against the AFL. It would be difficult for ASADA to have any chance of 'winning' if that's true. WADA probably have a much better chance of getting a favourable result.

The delaying tactics was all Essendon's doing yet ASADA get blamed for being tardy?

Jobe Watson allowed himself to be injected hundreds of times to the stomach region with 'unknown substances' ... yet he is portrayed as a victim - I refuse to buy into that.

.

It seems that ASADA/WADA can only pursue individuals or groups of individuals, not organisations or teams (such as Essendon) Or at least, that's what I've been told (can't find a link to confirm)

I'm assuming it to be true otherwise it might have been far easier to pursue Essendon and get them banned (thus, by default, ensuing the players couldn't play for the club - they could play elsewhere you'd think)

Again, I can't confirm any of the above but can someone else? Dees2014?

Also, the AFL punished Essendon for governance issues but could they or would they punish Essendon for importing PED's? (with a view to using them)

At the time when the AFL punished Essendon for governance issues, it couldn't be confirmed that Essendon had imported PED'S with a view to using them (that area is still clouded but there is a fair bit of truth attached to Essendon importing PED's)

Macca, as I understand it those that come under ASADA juristicion, are also subject to WADA appeal, which means essendon if charged by ASADA certainly are. As in my previous post I think what they are doing is to get this initial skirmish (ie the players) out of the way, then they will follow it with the fellow travellers (ie Hird, coaches, Little and Essendon itself). The hardest but to crack is the players, once that is done then everything else falls into place, just as it did with Armstrong. And Hird, as the primary instigator of the cheating, will get a similar fate ie life.

Then there is Workcover, and writs from interested parties.....

Edit: added last 2 paragraphs

On this subject 'Red', how much do you think AFL & Essendon will settle for to keep Hunter from going to court?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Your guess is as good as mine.

They have no records of what they gave him. He and the other 33 were basically lab rats.

Surely Hal (and any others that decide to sue) will be able to name their price? I'd be asking for a couple of million if i was him

Macca, as I understand it those that come under ASADA juristicion, are also subject to WADA appeal, which means essendon if charged by ASADA certainly are. As in my previous post I think what they are doing is to get this initial skirmish (ie the players) out of the way, then they will follow it with the fellow travellers (ie Hird, coaches, Little and Essendon itself). The hardest but to crack is the players, once that is done then everything else falls into place, just as it did with Armstrong. And Hird, as the primary instigator of the cheating, will get a similar fate ie life.

Then there is Workcover, and writs from interested parties.....

Fair enough, one thing I'm reasonably sure on is that the legal action and litigation from certain players could go for years. Those legal actions can have ramifications for Essendon of course (especially if records of the injection program are produced)

But the biggie for me is WADA and the CAS in Switzerland (if it happens) I'd like to share your confidence that it will happen but I'm hoping that this at least goes to the CAS (we can't rule out that the verdict from the CAS may go either way)

I can't help but feel that the Hal Hunter legal action holds the key - of course, things could be settled out of court but there will be others going down the same track you'd think. The whole thing isn't going away in a hurry. The decision on Dank is a major ingredient too - He could go 'all rogue' but isn't he doing that already

Fair enough, one thing I'm reasonably sure on is that the legal action and litigation from certain players could go for years. Those legal actions can have ramifications for Essendon of course (especially if records of the injection program are produced)

But the biggie for me is WADA and the CAS in Switzerland (if it happens) I'd like to share your confidence that it will happen but I'm hoping that this at least goes to the CAS (we can't rule out that the verdict from the CAS may go either way)

I can't help but feel that the Hal Hunter legal action holds the key - of course, things could be settled out of court but there will be others going down the same track you'd think. The whole thing isn't going away in a hurry. The decision on Dank is a major ingredient too - He could go 'all rogue' but isn't he doing that already

Macca, as always anything is possible, but on the balance of probabilities Essendon look like losing. I personally dont think any legal outcomes in Australia will have the least bit influence on the judgements by CAS. They are very different legal systems, and in any case i know for a fact that WADA are APPALLED by Essendon's actions.

Let's see what happens. but i know who i would prefer to back.

I reckon Hal Hunter will be settled out of court with the usual vows of silence. $1 to 2M should do it. So let's assume $68M max will do the entire 34. Pocket money for the CEO.

Dees2014 - on what basis do you know "for a fact that WADA are APPALLED by Essendon's actions."

Sorry, your May need to paste the URL into your internet explorer. It worked for me by double clicking initially, but not now. They are worth reading.

pasting doesn't work either, still end up back on dl. can you redo these links?

I reckon Hal Hunter will be settled out of court with the usual vows of silence. $1 to 2M should do it. So let's assume $68M max will do the entire 34. Pocket money for the CEO.

Dees2014 - on what basis do you know "for a fact that WADA are APPALLED by Essendon's actions."

I'd be really surprised if Hal didn't take a settlement. Young guy and a settlement of $1-2m would be very tempting.

Found the PM's comments to be inappropriate given an independent government agency, ASADA, considers an appeal to be a live option. Abbott should have remained impartial stating that e backs ASADA to make the call. I also think WADA would take a dim view of such comments.

I reckon Hal Hunter will be settled out of court with the usual vows of silence. $1 to 2M should do it. So let's assume $68M max will do the entire 34. Pocket money for the CEO.

Dees2014 - on what basis do you know "for a fact that WADA are APPALLED by Essendon's actions."

What price do you put on something that could potentially shorten your lifespan , along with the stress I ld say 10 million could be a start .

But ASADA would IMO also have to show the players intended to use the particular substance in question, that being TB4 ...

That's not how it works. To be found guilty of use or intending to use, you don't need to know that what you intend to use contains a banned substance.

The players got off because the tribunal weren't convinced that the "TB4" they were injected with was actually TB4.

1 If I was wrong the players would have been found guilty.

2 No one has come out and stated that they injected an illegal substance into the players.

3 The players are responsible for what goes into their bodies, prove what that was.

1. No they wouldn't. You can't be proved to have used or intended to use if there's no reliable evidence that it was a banned substance. There was the case of the Belgian cyclist who was caught importing what he thought was a banned PED. But the case was dismissed when it was analysed and found to be harmless. If you can't establish that a product is or contains a banned substance, there's no case - as happened here.

2. You're surprised?

3. It wasn't proved, which is why they weren't found guilty.