As an Essendon member, I would like to know what my players were injected with.

Pure and simple.

If it's the bad stuff, punishments have to be given. Can't escape that.

This is a very passionate topic, for everyone.

Sometimes passions blurs the lines of logic.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, so you get the Essendon supporters who think we've done nothing wrong and are dirty on the world for slandering the club for 2 years.

And you get opposition supporters who want Essendon booted from the AFL forever and won't watch another game of AFL until it happens.

I worry for the state of mind for some of the posters on Demonland if WADA don't appeal.

Ash, I quite understand your annoyance about some extreme views about this. If I put myself in the position if it was the MFC and not the EFC, I'm sure I would feel aggrieved by such extremes. I hope though if Melbourne had an administration who positioned itself to deal with such difficulties in such an adversarial way because of the egos and extreme personalities of the coach and President, I would campaign to have such people removed from office as they have by their actions been deliberately putting the future of my club in jeopardy. The fact is that if Evans and the advisors who were put into Essendon by demetriou had stayed, and not been rolled by Hird and Little, all this would have been over in 2013 to the satisfaction of everyone, including the AFL, ASADA and WADA. I have seen no such movement from aggrieved Essendon members for the removal of Hird and Little.

It is they you should be taking your anger out on, not supporters of other clubs who want justice to be done in this instance, nor on courageous regulators like Ben McDevitt and John Fehey, nor crusading journalists like Caroline Wilson and Patrick Smith, all of whom have been subject to the most vile PR campaign launched by the Little regime which seems to think it is fine to trash reputations of these people because they are doing their jobs. It is Hird and Little you should be angry at - not anyone else.

I for one will be quite happy to go along with a considered verdict from an unbiased umpire, as I think will most other dispassionate observers of this situation. Whether, the Hird and Little forces will, if the verdict goes against them, is another question altogether, but fortunately they will have no choice.

Ummm. OK. You tell them, Jab.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-23/former-tiger-jake-king-seeking-compensation-over-careerending-injury

Playing the victim card, well played Jobe. I didn't mind him a few years ago, thought he was an honest, old fashioned style workhorse player.

Now, can't stand him.

Disliking Essendon for some could go back a lot further than this latest "spat" of dirty tactics as was displayed with various annual displays.

Notwithstanding the fact that this latest cartel carcinogen could be called "the icing on the cake" we MELBOURNE started this competition and drugs have no place in it.

IMHO much better if WADA doesn't appeal, keep things just as they are IE Essendon cheated in 2012 and got away with it due to the destruction of evidence and witness tampering! That stigma will never go away . . . and I'm quite happy with that!!

I guess another problem is - how long do these drugs maintain their benefit? Was their comeback v Saints enhanced by whatever it is that they took? It will linger until every player who was involved in "the program" has retired, and it will leave a stinking odor over every game that they have participated in.

We just do not know.

I guess another problem is - how long do these drugs maintain their benefit? Was their comeback v Saints enhanced by whatever it is that they took? It will linger until every player who was involved in "the program" has retired, and it will leave a stinking odor over every game that they have participated in.

We just do not know.

Our performance against Sydney in Round 1 looked far from "drug enhanced". Quite the opposite.

Gave up a 5 goal 1/2 time lead against NM in last years Elimination Final.

I don't have any idea how long the benefits of such a supplements programme last, but we have had just as many flat, poor performances in recent times as stirring comeback victories.

So my guess would be zero effect these days.

Playing the victim card, well played Jobe. I didn't mind him a few years ago, thought he was an honest, old fashioned style workhorse player.

Now, can't stand him.

"There is no coverage, there's nothing there to protect the players," Essendon captain Jobe Watson said.

"The health and medical wellbeing of players is something I think will move towards being of greater importance.

"You look at past players now and the injuries that everyone gets out of the game with, these are lifelong and there's 50 years of your life to live after you've finished playing.

What an ungrateful young man! Gets free inoculation against cancer and still complains . . . TCH! TCH!!

All now hinges on WADAs reading of the brief of evidence. But given the focus on personal responsibility, as expressed by John Fahey, and John Coates, and the lack of steps taken by Essendon players to question what was happening, and the lesser standard of proof required by CAS than the interpretation settled on by the AFL Tribunal, it is hard to see the Essendon players, and indeed the administration and coaches, getting off.

Once CAS pronounces on the players, then the coaches and administration will follow if what happens in cycling is any guide.

There are many mistakes in your take but none greater than this nonsense - there is not a 'lesser standard of proof required by CAS', the burden of proof is identical to that applied by the AFL Tribunal & we all know how spectacularly ASADA failed in even getting close to proving it's case(lol).

As for Fahey, he can whinge & cry as much as he likes but he is no longer relevant in any way to this or any other case & to suggest he has any influence on how WADA will decide on any appeal, is simply misleading anyone silly enough to put any credence in your posts.

There are many mistakes in your take but none greater than this nonsense - there is not a 'lesser standard of proof required by CAS', the burden of proof is identical to that applied by the AFL Tribunal & we all know how spectacularly ASADA failed in even getting close to proving it's case(lol).

As for Fahey, he can whinge & cry as much as he likes but he is no longer relevant in any way to this or any other case & to suggest he has any influence on how WADA will decide on any appeal, is simply misleading anyone silly enough to put any credence in your posts.

Well Sanitypad the only tribunal worth worrying about is the tribunal of public opinion. Their verdict unanimous: Guilty of CHEATING!!

Unfortunately for Essendon that stench will follow them (and their loyal apologists) for decades . . . and that IS FACT!!

There are many mistakes in your take but none greater than this nonsense - there is not a 'lesser standard of proof required by CAS', the burden of proof is identical to that applied by the AFL Tribunal & we all know how spectacularly ASADA failed in even getting close to proving it's case(lol).

As for Fahey, he can whinge & cry as much as he likes but he is no longer relevant in any way to this or any other case & to suggest he has any influence on how WADA will decide on any appeal, is simply misleading anyone silly enough to put any credence in your posts.

The burden of proof question is not as simple as you suggest. Comfortable satisfaction is somewhat of a moving beast, where it lies is dependant on the consequences of a guilty finding, this is what is called the Briginshaw test.

There are legal bloggers out there (actual lawyers who understand these things) that have said that it seems the tribunal put the burden of proof at a very high point, some say it was basically beyond reasonable doubt. This is seen in the tribunals decision to say they didn't know if it was TB4 or TB500 as the tests said it could be either. This seemed odd as they don't need to be absolutely satisfied and they have evidence from Charters, Alavi, and the manufacturer in China that it was TB4. Wouldn't you then be satisfied that it was TB4, especially as a test showed it could have been? Obviously this is where the tribunal members thought the burned of proof should lie and due to there dissatisfaction about the substance they basically stopped there, although they did say they couldn't link it from Dank to the club.

Now if this goes to CAS and CAS say they are satisfied it was TB4, which I am confident they would as they would set the burden of proof lower, then the question comes back to the link from Dank to the club. It doesn't take much joining of dots to make that happen, and joining is allowed if comfortable satisfaction is lowered from the stratospheric levels it was taken to by the tribunal.

Edited May 4, 201510 yr by Chris

Well Sanitypad the only tribunal worth worrying about is the tribunal of public opinion. Their verdict unanimous: Guilty of CHEATING!!

Unfortunately for Essendon that stench will follow them (and their loyal apologists) for decades . . . and that IS FACT!!

That's sad because the "court of public opinion" said we tanked.

Be careful what you wish for.

The burden of proof question is not as simple as you suggest. Comfortable satisfaction is somewhat of a moving beast, where it lies is dependant on the consequences of a guilty finding, this is what is called the Briginshaw test.

There are legal bloggers out there (actual lawyers who understand these things) that have said that it seems the tribunal put the burden of proof at a very high point, some say it was basically beyond reasonable doubt. This is seen in their decision to say they didn't know if it was TB4 or TB500 as the tests said it could be either. This seemed odd as they don't need to be absolutely satisfied and they have evidence from Charters, Alavi, and the manufacturer in China that it was TB4. Wouldn't you then be satisfied that it was TB4, especially as a test showed it could have been? Obviously this is where the tribunal members thought the burned of proof should lie and due to there dissatisfaction about the substance they basically stopped there, although they did say they couldn't link it from Dank to the club.

Now if this goes to CAS and CAS say they are satisfied it was TB4, which I am confident they would as they would set the burden of proof lower, then the question comes back to the link from Dank to the club. It doesn't take much joining of dots to make that happen, and joining is allowed if comfortable satisfaction is lowered from the stratospheric levels it was taken to by the tribunal.

This quote says it all I am afraid - There are legal bloggers out there (actual lawyers who understand these things) that have said that it seems the tribunal put the burden of proof at a very high point, some say it was basically beyond reasonable doubt. - This is just opinion & almost certainly opinion from those who were displeased with the tribunals findings. There is nothing released to date which backs the assertion that the tribunal set the bop to high, nothing. The tribunal was made up of very experienced legal minds, those that actually have practiced & not just blogged, & as we will most certainly see in a few days time when WADA do not appeal, their judgement was spot on.

This quote says it all I am afraid - There are legal bloggers out there (actual lawyers who understand these things) that have said that it seems the tribunal put the burden of proof at a very high point, some say it was basically beyond reasonable doubt. - This is just opinion & almost certainly opinion from those who were displeased with the tribunals findings. There is nothing released to date which backs the assertion that the tribunal set the bop to high, nothing. The tribunal was made up of very experienced legal minds, those that actually have practiced & not just blogged, & as we will most certainly see in a few days time when WADA do not appeal, their judgement was spot on.

How about you actually read the blogs, they are very balanced and not biased at all either way, they simply state what has happened and what will happen. They are also qualified practicing lawyers so they would know a thing or two about it. The example given about whether it was TB4 paints picture perfectly, surely if you have tests that say it probably is, and three people all saying it is, and these people are the manufacturer and the people who ordered it, then you could be satisfied that it was TB4.

They also pointed out that Jones was a criminal judge used to working with beyond reasonable doubt so may have leaned unknowingly to what he was comfortable with. they raised the questions of whether this would be the same with a civil judge, or people experienced with dealing with comfortable satisfaction in the CAS setting.

I am sure you wont accept any of this as you appear to one of the many EFC fans who still have your head buried and only heard not guilty and haven't delved any deeper. Can I suggest you do.

That's sad because the "court of public opinion" said we tanked.

Be careful what you wish for.

Compared with "scum-sucking lying cheater!", "tanking" is a compliment!!

That's sad because the "court of public opinion" said we tanked.

Be careful what you wish for.

we only did what many others had done...just did it badly. You know this is a straw argument.

As to comparing in any shape and form the shenanigans at Windy Hill to our debacle of list managing, well you're on your own there Bob.

This quote says it all I am afraid - There are legal bloggers out there (actual lawyers who understand these things) that have said that it seems the tribunal put the burden of proof at a very high point, some say it was basically beyond reasonable doubt. - This is just opinion & almost certainly opinion from those who were displeased with the tribunals findings. There is nothing released to date which backs the assertion that the tribunal set the bop to high, nothing. The tribunal was made up of very experienced legal minds, those that actually have practiced & not just blogged, & as we will most certainly see in a few days time when WADA do not appeal, their judgement was spot on.

very experienced working with "beyond reasonable doubt" but how experienced were they working with "comfortable satisfaction" in a sporting tribunal?

we only did what many others had done...just did it badly.

And who says Essendon are on their own?

And who says Essendon are on their own?

im not. Nor are various others. How exactly is drug taking akin to list managing ?

And who says Essendon are on their own?

An excellent point.

It is not just EFC who have been desperately trying to control the narrative (we were duped by a rogue operator, its all about the players welfare, we are innocent, it is all an AFL/ASADA conspiracy, heck even close to we are the victims!)

The AFL have sought all along to control the narrative and one of the most important parts of their narrative is that it was the EFC alone who undertook an illegal supplement program. Look at their recent response to suggestions that they ignored suspicion about Gold Coast - where they have largely been cool and quiet they quickly put out comments about heir thorough examination of them.

Whilst it might be true only EFC had a program that if not illegal was dangerously close to it (the grey zone as Dank has cutely called it) it is also a distinct possibility, if history of drugs in sport is anything to go by, they were not the only club to do so.

im not. Nor are various others. How exactly is drug taking akin to list managing ?

You say list management, he says tanking/ You say drug taking, he says supplements.

There is always another view 'bb'...

You say list management, he says tanking/ You say drug taking, he says supplements.

There is always another view 'bb'...

Sorry that is rubbish, but just in case you weren't making a weak joke..... Would you apply that reasoning to comparing murder with shoplifting?

BB is quite correct, drug taking is of course far far more serious than tanking.

An excellent point.

It is not just EFC who have been desperately trying to control the narrative (we were duped by a rogue operator, its all about the players welfare, we are innocent, it is all an AFL/ASADA conspiracy, heck even close to we are the victims!)

The AFL have sought all along to control the narrative and one of the most important parts of their narrative is that it was the EFC alone who undertook an illegal supplement program. Look at their recent response to suggestions that they ignored suspicion about Gold Coast - where they have largely been cool and quiet they quickly put out comments about heir thorough examination of them.

Whilst it might be true only EFC had a program that if not illegal was dangerously close to it (the grey zone as Dank has cutely called it) it is also a distinct possibility, if history of drugs in sport is anything to go by, they were not the only club to do so.

all very true.....but i still don't see your point

sounds like a classic strawman argument

unless you are really saying that efc should be given a free ticket because they weren't the first

at least with the tanking issue there was plenty of evidence that previously the afl had no qualms about list management

there certainly was no evidence that the afl condoned the taking of peds.

all very true.....but i still don't see your point

sounds like a classic strawman argument

unless you are really saying that efc should be given a free ticket because they weren't the first

at least with the tanking issue there was plenty of evidence that previously the afl had no qualms about list management

there certainly was no evidence that the afl condoned the taking of peds.

I was making a point in isolation - ie there is every chance other clubs operated within the grey area and a chance some have used PEDs. And the AFL would prefer people to think this is not the case.

Not making any comment about EFC.

The bolded bit is actually interesting. Whilst there is no evidence the AFL condoned PED use there is evidence they knew EFC (and other?) were sailing pretty close to the wind and did not act. AD has acknowledged this and said one of his biggest regrets is not acting sooner to reign in the rise and rise of the influence of sports scientists prepared to go to the edge of what is legal. Indeed ASADA tabled evidence in the Midleton case that the AFL warned Hird about the risks.

Despite this awareness of what was happening at EFC they chose not to put in place the sort of controls they subsequently did after EFC self reported (ie after the horse had bolted).

And by the by, like it or hate it the EFC have not been found guilty of taking PEDs. And despite what people may believe it is is possible that they are indeed innocent of the charges.

I was making a point in isolation - ie there is every chance other clubs operated within the grey area and a chance some have used PEDs. And the AFL would prefer people to think this is not the case.

Not making any comment about EFC.

The bolded bit is actually interesting. Whilst there is no evidence the AFL condoned PED use there is evidence they knew EFC (and other?) were sailing pretty close to the wind and did not act. AD has acknowledged this and said one of his biggest regrets is not acting sooner to reign in the rise and rise of the influence of sports scientists prepared to go to the edge of what is legal. Indeed ASADA tabled evidence in the Midleton case that the AFL warned Hird about the risks.

Despite this awareness of what was happening at EFC they chose not to put in place the sort of controls they subsequently did after EFC self reported (ie after the horse had bolted).

And by the by, like it or hate it the EFC have not been found guilty of taking PEDs. And despite what people may believe it is is possible that they are indeed innocent of the charges.

you're not saying anything new,

im not. Nor are various others. How exactly is drug taking akin to list managing ?

I'm saying "court of public opinion".

It's not that hard.