Are the players employed by the AFL or the club? Contract is between player and club but I have a feeling the ultimate employer is the AFL. Can someone clarify?

If the AFL is the ultimate employer Worksafe will go after them.

Theyre employed by the club on an afl approved contract.

I would have thought the AFL relatively clear of this ( cant believe i wrote that lol ) in so far as when aware they did warn hird/essendon against the path they took.

Basically EFC simply went ahead and flouted all the rules and some.

They not the AFL would be accountable i should think though its a classic efc gambit to have done something then blame others for what they did themselves as if its anyone else fault.

Amazing!!

Heh, the tribunal decision may bite them on the arse as it basically says no one knows what the hell was injected into the players.

What are Essendon going to argue to Worksafe? "Oh, uh, yeah we don't know what it was but it totally wasn't unsafe."

There will be massive fallout over this I think.

Well said Choke. That is what i have been arguing, amongst other things, all along. WorkSafe is a far more serious consequence in many ways than WADA. They are far more prescriptive, and the actions are far easier to prove.

But as you all know, I still think WADA will win through CAS, but as far as the consequences for individuals, particularly the Hirds and the "mafia" who support him, WorkSafe will be far more severe and the consequences huge. The fall out will be enormous.

Worksafe is to Hird/Little/efc as the IRS was to Capone !!!

don't get too excited

they won't go for maximums

they will take into account prev afl governance penalties

they will take into account new governance rules in place

they will take into account anything else they can to deliver a wet lettuce.......i can just see it happening

I'm not excited.

What afl governance penalties did the directors cop?

They won't take into account new governance penalties. Why would they? They don't do that for regular businesses that fall foul of the laws.

I agree with you on the last point though.

Well said Choke. That is what i have been arguing, amongst other things, all along. WorkSafe is a far more serious consequence in many ways than WADA. They are far more prescriptive, and the actions are far easier to prove.

But as you all know, I still think WADA will win through CAS, but as far as the consequences for individuals, particularly the Hirds and the "mafia" who support him, WorkSafe will be far more severe and the consequences huge. The fall out will be enormous.

As much as I would want the above to happen, if there is no proof what the players took and the players don't complain I doubt they can get the EFC

As much as I would want the above to happen, if there is no proof what the players took and the players don't complain I doubt they can get the EFC

We shall see who is right. I look forward to the day...

As much as I would want the above to happen, if there is no proof what the players took and the players don't complain I doubt they can get the EFC

WorkSafe might give them an award! The Golden Syringe for Model Workplace 2012 goes to . . . .

2 things though

a) No one disputes the Club administered *something*

b) There are no known records to prove what was taken.

A+B = worksafe-shlt

Lance Armstrong had a whole bunch of pele with intimate knowledge and involvement give evidence against him.

Sure, but none of it was evidence that could ever be corroborated, many of those testifying against him had axes to grind, and none of the substances in question were ever tested. It's not for nothing that the Federal Inquiry into Armstrong didn't lead to any charges being laid, they knew they would have trouble getting past the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required. USADA on the other hand, with the lower "comfortable satisfaction" didn't have the same reservations - even though the evidence and testimonies were the same. The other difference was that the testimonies in the Armstrong case were all sworn - though whether or not that should make a difference in a WADA/doping case is questionable.

Not saying Armstrong was innocent, far from it, just pointing out that the differences may well be differences of scale, but aren't really differences of substance. Biggest difference, of course, is that there was no Tribunal.

Sure, but none of it was evidence that could ever be corroborated, many of those testifying against him had axes to grind, and none of the substances in question were ever tested. It's not for nothing that the Federal Inquiry into Armstrong didn't lead to any charges being laid, they knew they would have trouble getting past the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard required. USADA on the other hand, with the lower "comfortable satisfaction" didn't have the same reservations - even though the evidence and testimonies were the same. The other difference was that the testimonies in the Armstrong case were all sworn - though whether or not that should make a difference in a WADA/doping case is questionable.

Not saying Armstrong was innocent, far from it, just pointing out that the differences may well be differences of scale, but aren't really differences of substance. Biggest difference, of course, is that there was no Tribunal.

bing, even in criminal cases witnesses don't have to have corroboration

their testimony is accepted or not by the jury on their believability

there were multiple witnesses against armstrong who gave sworn evidence which was accepted

it was the witnesses who made the difference

by contrast there were no witnesses for asada who appeared before the tribunal

What are the available Worksafe punishments? Do they include jail for directors?

I think, potentially, yes. Not sure however if it would be likely given that (so far) there have been no proven injuries as a result.

The pity though is I believe that that smug golden boy may not be part of any penalty.

I know some of you think I am talking through my hat on this and have been asked on here and through private email to rank out of ten what the chances of a successful WADA appeal to CAS might be. At the moment I would put it at an 8.

I am currently researching the internal processes of both WADA and CAS, and will post a detailed piece on this in the next couple of days. From this I am even more confident they will act. I quote in the piece John Coates, VP of the IOC, president of the AOC, and even more interestingly Chairman of the Board of CAS, and a distinguished lawyer in his own right. In the quote he makes it crystal clear he holds all athletes personally responsible for what goes into their mouthes and he includes all wealthy football codes in this. He has zero tolerance for non enforcement of this principle. In private, apparently he is even more dogmatic about this, and thinks the wealthy football codes are trying to put one over all of us on this, This is a view shared by nearly all the Olympic movement and minor sports. They think the wealthy football codes think there is one rule for them and another for all the rest, and would love to see CAS bring them into line.

I also think that WorkSafe hold if anything greater danger to the EFC and Hird than CAS. So far, although I wouldn't rule this out, they have not been nobled by Daniel Andrews who is an Essendon fanatic, and as Premier has the power to partially influence the priorities of WorkSafe, although he would be playing on dangerous ground with the Unions if he did so. The penalties from WorkSafe are far more severe and personal in the event of a finding of a breach of their code, including jail terms for directors and major instigators like Hird and Danks. I'm not saying it will go as far as this, but the penalties will be severe and would certainly rule Hird out of further employment in the football industry.

Finally, I was talking the other day to one of melbourne's most distinguished surgeons and he was saying that the medical profession has no doubt there was an illegal program going on at Essendon and if WADA doesn't get them now they will get them in the next 12 months because all the players' blood samples are in the blood bank and there will be a test available for Beta4 within 12 months. This is the way they eventually nabbed Armstrong, O'Grady, Hodge and Matt White for blood doping. At the very least it will prove the justice of a positive CAS outcome.

As I keep on saying this is far from over, then there is the book from Caro and the mini series from channel nine....!

Finally, I was talking the other day to one of melbourne's most distinguished surgeons and he was saying that the medical profession has no doubt there was an illegal program going on at Essendon and if WADA doesn't get them now they will get them in the next 12 months because all the players' blood samples are in the blood bank and there will be a test available for Beta4 within 12 months. This is the way they eventually nabbed Armstrong, O'Grady, Hodge and Matt White for blood doping. At the very least it will prove the justice of a positive CAS outcome.

As I keep on saying this is far from over, then there is the book from Caro and the mini series from channel nine....!

If they can test in 12months and then lay charges, fight any appeals etc the players will be 30yo or have left the club. The only sanction that would appease the sporting world is to have EFC banned from competitrion.

it was the witnesses who made the difference

I would suggest that it's the people hearing the cases who made the difference.

Dees2014 I'm one who thinks that you may be talking out of your hat.

But I really, really hope to be proven wrong. If so I will be the first to chow down on humble pie.

I would suggest that it's the people hearing the cases who made the difference.

For mine it is a little from column a and a little from column b.

Put the CAS judges in charge, subpoena the witnesses (through the supreme court) and I think we would have a very different outcomes.

Don't forget as well that CAS and WADA wont be swayed at all by the BS interference of the AFL. In fact they will look very unfavourably upon it!

I would suggest that it's the people hearing the cases who made the difference.

so no witnesses and he still goes down?

i know what you are trying to say so let's say it was the witnesses plus the judges prepared to believe them

now where were asada's witnesses or even ones prepared to make a sworn statement

and what makes you think wada can get them into court and singing

so no witnesses and he still goes down?

i know what you are trying to say so let's say it was the witnesses plus the judges prepared to believe them

now where were asada's witnesses or even ones prepared to make a sworn statement

and what makes you think wada can get them into court and singing

WADA should be able to get them into court through a subpoena, it needs to be granted by the supreme court but this has been done in the past. Making them sing is another question.

For mine it is a little from column a and a little from column b.

Put the CAS judges in charge, subpoena the witnesses (through the supreme court) and I think we would have a very different outcomes.

Don't forget as well that CAS and WADA wont be swayed at all by the BS interference of the AFL. In fact they will look very unfavourably upon it!

Am I the only one that thinks people of the reputation and experience of the David Jones, Wayne Henwood and the other former judge whose name escapes me would have been immune to any interference from the AFL? (And I don't believe the AFL even tried to interfere).

If they can test in 12months and then lay charges, fight any appeals etc the players will be 30yo or have left the club. The only sanction that would appease the sporting world is to have EFC banned from competitrion.

Don't agree at all. Most of them are under 25 and the bans would come in at the height of their careers, what is left of them. In any case I believe as I have said constantly on here WADA will win at CAS and the bans will be enacted this year.

so no witnesses and he still goes down?

i know what you are trying to say so let's say it was the witnesses plus the judges prepared to believe them

now where were asada's witnesses or even ones prepared to make a sworn statement

Even the point your making isn't so much about witnesses, it's about evidence. There were witnesses who presented testimony in the Armstrong case, but the nail in the coffin to some extent was that there was documentary evidence of transactions: bank details, emails etc.

ASADA also had plenty of documentary evidence, seized files etc. etc. The bulk of their case was accepted, just not that the substance that's at the heart of it was what it purported to be. If you assume that what left the manufacturer in China was in fact TB4, then it all plays out very differently.

ASADA also called a number of witnesses e.g. in regards to the spectrometry tests.

ASADA also had plenty of documentary evidence, seized files etc. etc. The bulk of their case was accepted, just not that the substance that's at the heart of it was what it purported to be. If you assume that what left the manufacturer in China was in fact TB4, then it all plays out very differently.

Intent to cheat is enough, though, isn't it? And if Essendon tried to get TB4, then whether they got dudded or not has no bearing on their intent... They've been given the benefit of an irrelevancy.

Even the point your making isn't so much about witnesses, it's about evidence. There were witnesses who presented testimony in the Armstrong case, but the nail in the coffin to some extent was that there was documentary evidence of transactions: bank details, emails etc.

ASADA also had plenty of documentary evidence, seized files etc. etc. The bulk of their case was accepted, just not that the substance that's at the heart of it was what it purported to be. If you assume that what left the manufacturer in China was in fact TB4, then it all plays out very differently.

ASADA also called a number of witnesses e.g. in regards to the spectrometry tests.

you don't have to convince me bing

it's the court and there is still that bit extra that they have to justify why the tribunal was wrong (whether new trial or not)

and btw i always thought eye witnesses were considered evidence

you don't have to convince me bing

it's the court and there is still that bit extra that they have to justify why the tribunal was wrong (whether new trial or not)

and btw i always thought eye witnesses were considered evidence

DC ....what worked for the EFC etc at the pretend court will work AGAINST them at a real one.