Brock didn't Tank. The Club did.

Schwab was the one who threw the club under the bus

And Brock could never have envisioned that a throwaway line on TV would lead to a full on tanking investigation

And it shouldn't have anyway. Took them a year or more and the best they could come up with was that Chris Connolly made a joke about tanking in a team meeting LOL

Fine work by AFL House!

And Brock could never have envisioned that a throwaway line on TV would lead to a full on tanking investigation

And it shouldn't have anyway. Took them a year or more and the best they could come up with was that Chris Connolly made a joke about tanking in a team meeting LOL

Fine work by AFL House!

exactly

But if i was putting my body and health on the line each week i wouldn't be stoked if my workplace was happy to lose...

i just couldn't handle the irony of block criticising melbourne while joining the prince of tanking carlton, without a whisper of that

i just couldn't handle the irony of block criticising melbourne while joining the prince of tanking carlton, without a whisper of that

He went where the deal was done...

He went where the deal was done...

what's that got to do with irony?

what's that got to do with irony?

It has very little to do with anything

But Brock went where he was told....

Maybe it's just me but I don't have much ill feeling towards Brock. The club wasted a chunk of his career by tanking, he was angry and he had every right to be. He was definitely naive to do that interview but if you think he was the one who forced the investigation, you are kidding yourself. There were definitely powers above pulling the strings.

What a load of crap. IF they did tank, and its a big if in my book it was at best for 5-6 games. What you have forgotten is we were a pizz poor side. Tanking assumes we could have won and chose to lose.

How long before Golden Boy starts playing the 'victim card"... i mean none of this has anything to do with him . When he finally gets his just deserts he'll be the ' oh woe is me" king for sure

At some point the Gov has to reclaim the decency of sport and instigate a RC into this whole fiasco. The AFL and the various Cronies have to be outed and brought to account.

The public deserve better than what has been presented by the various culpable parties.

Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun Aug 11Sydney, New South Wales
@jamesmag23 that's a pretty good reply, James. But to my question, did you get injections in the stomach? Can you answer that?

jamesmagner ‏@jamesmag23 Aug 11
@Robbo_heraldsun no

Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun Aug 12Sydney, New South Wales
@jamesmag23 thanks

If you ever needed an example of why Mark Robinson is not a quality journalist, read the above exchange carefully. By asking two questions in his first of the above tweets, he has no way of knowing what James Magner's simple, but clever, reply of "No" actually means. Which question did Magner actually answer? Robinson may have followed up seeking clarification, but if he was doing his job properly in the first place, he wouldn't have to.

Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun Aug 11Sydney, New South Wales

@jamesmag23 that's a pretty good reply, James. But to my question, did you get injections in the stomach? Can you answer that?

jamesmagner ‏@jamesmag23 Aug 11

@Robbo_heraldsun no

Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun Aug 12Sydney, New South Wales

@jamesmag23 thanks

If you ever needed an example of why Mark Robinson is not a quality journalist, read the above exchange carefully. By asking two questions in his first of the above tweets, he has no way of knowing what James Magner's simple, but clever, reply of "No" actually means. Which question did Magner actually answer? Robinson may have followed up seeking clarification, but if he was doing his job properly in the first place, he wouldn't have to.

You sound like Robbo trying to make a story out of nothing.

things have really picked up well for the bombers since sheedy's return

that must be 4 senior coaches they have on their payroll

Craigy for caretaker ,Neeldy to take over !!!

. . . close the door on your way out thank you James!

The simple reason Hird won't quit Essendon is because he forfeits an entire year's salary.

Just as you'd be a fool to quit your job if you foresee your employer being forced to pay out your contract. And trust me, Hird's gonna need that cashola when the lawsuits follow him around ad nauseum.

things have really picked up well for the bombers since sheedy's return

that must be 4 senior coaches they have on their payroll

I think it might be five (Hird, Sheedy, Harvey, Craig, Neeld).

I think it might be five (Hird, Sheedy, Harvey, Craig, Neeld).

good pickup ldvc

and it could have been 6 if bomba had stayed

according to the hun today, the players could get as little as 2-3 weeks if found guilty.

hm...yeah, but nah.

according to the hun today, the players could get as little as 2-3 weeks if found guilty.

hm...yeah, but nah.

Is that 2-3 weeks of real games or 2-3 weeks in the off season? Neither sounds right to me if the players are found guilty, though. If either is correct, someone may as well be knocking on old dee's door and asking for his wet tram ticket.

according to the hun today, the players could get as little as 2-3 weeks if found guilty.

hm...yeah, but nah.

They're already preparing their post-guilty attack on WADA's sentencing. They're trying to get people used to the idea of 2-3 week bans so they'll be "outraged" by 1-2 year bans. I can hear the delusional talkback callers already.

"This WADA organisation is a joke. The media have been saying all along the players would only miss a few weeks, then WADA came in and ruined everything! It's not fair!"

It becomes yet another obfuscation from the core issue: Essendon caused ALL of this.

according to the hun today, the players could get as little as 2-3 weeks if found guilty.

hm...yeah, but nah.

The Hun is a rag.

They make up stories, exaggerate stories, extrapolate and lie.

Jeff Gleeson AFL SC Gleeson said, considering the circumstances, if they were found guilty, the players should receive only a small match-based penalty, comparable to a "hamstring" injury.

Neither ASADA nor the players' advocates made submissions on potential penalties. The tribunal wasn't comfortably satisfied they did the crime, and so the question of time has been rendered moot.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-essendon-verdict-the-inside-story-of-the-antidoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html#ixzz3j7rrAxTZ

What has this got to do with the WADA case?

They're already preparing their post-guilty attack on WADA's sentencing. They're trying to get people used to the idea of 2-3 week bans so they'll be "outraged" by 1-2 year bans. I can hear the delusional talkback callers already.

"This WADA organisation is a joke. The media have been saying all along the players would only miss a few weeks, then WADA came in and ruined everything! It's not fair!"

It becomes yet another obfuscation from the core issue: Essendon caused ALL of this.

There is not a way, short of finding the players not guilty, that there could be a sentence of "3-4 weeks". WADA has rules re sentencing and at the moment the minimum sentence is 2 years, and soon to go to 4 years. Whilst there is room for backdating, it is in my view unlikely given WADA's current attitude, and if there were some it would be minimal eg back to the date the infraction notices were issued which would mean the players would serve about 18 months.

There is not a way, short of finding the players not guilty, that there could be a sentence of "3-4 weeks". WADA has rules re sentencing and at the moment the minimum sentence is 2 years, and soon to go to 4 years. Whilst there is room for backdating, it is in my view unlikely given WADA's current attitude, and if there were some it would be minimal eg back to the date the infraction notices were issued which would mean the players would serve about 18 months.

Exactly, we all know such a short sentencing simply will not happen. This is deliberately misleading positioning of public sentiment from the Hun. They're planning ahead now because they see WADA's endgame and it ain't a pretty outcome for Essendon.

Edited August 18, 20159 yr by Lamashtu

There is not a way, short of finding the players not guilty, that there could be a sentence of "3-4 weeks". WADA has rules re sentencing and at the moment the minimum sentence is 2 years, and soon to go to 4 years. Whilst there is room for backdating, it is in my view unlikely given WADA's current attitude, and if there were some it would be minimal eg back to the date the infraction notices were issued which would mean the players would serve about 18 months.

There is scope for discounting and that can go down to zero ban, although in this case zero ban will not happen if guilty. The scope for discounts will depend on the satisfaction of the tribunal that the players are at no considerable fault (highly unlikely), and that there has been a delay not caused by the players. This is where the delaying tactics of the club come in. There have been significant delays caused by the club, the AFL, and to a lesser degree ASADA, these can be discounted off the ban, this may end up with a 6 months ban which would equal a few games at the start of the year. In my opinion this was one of the key drivers for EFC and Hird going to court, cause a delay the players can claim back later, why else were the players not involved in the action? It is also the only way that Hird going to court was about the players.

Short bans would be insufficient and would be by the design of the EFC and AFL but it is what it is. This is also how the Cronulla players got off so light, the delays were placed on ASADA, not the players.

The amount of game playing from both the EFC and AFL to get this issue hidden and make both WADA and ASADA out as the bad guys is appalling, almost has me walking form the game all together.

On reflection I think that the length of sentence if found guilty will be far out weighed by the stigma that will be indelibly attached

to the Players ,Club, Coaches,Supporters and League and so it should. The thing is that every supporter of every other AFL Club should be incensed that their code has now

joined the list of sports throughout the world that are tainted by this mob and their kindred rag newspaper lackeys.

There is scope for discounting and that can go down to zero ban, although in this case zero ban will not happen if guilty. The scope for discounts will depend on the satisfaction of the tribunal that the players are at no considerable fault (highly unlikely), and that there has been a delay not caused by the players. This is where the delaying tactics of the club come in. There have been significant delays caused by the club, the AFL, and to a lesser degree ASADA, these can be discounted off the ban, this may end up with a 6 months ban which wouSld equal a few games at the start of the year. In my opinion this was one of the key drivers for EFC and Hird going to court, cause a delay the players can claim back later, why else were the players not involved in the action? It is also the only way that Hird going to court was about the players.

Short bans would be insufficient and would be by the design of the EFC and AFL but it is what it is. This is also how the Cronulla players got off so light, the delays were placed on ASADA, not the players.

The amount of game playing from both the EFC and AFL to get this issue hidden and make both WADA and ASADA out as the bad guys is appalling, almost has me walking form the game all together.

Chris, basically I think we are furiously agreement with one proviso.

The Essendon mob are delusional on this. Either they get off (I can tell you it won't happen - WADA believes this is one of the most open and shut case they have dealt with), or it is a question of how severe the penalties, and that does not mean 2-3 weeks, it means 2 or 4 years.

Their main aim is the perpetrators. Hird, because of his willingness to lie and cheat - and importantly litigate at the drop of a hat, remind them very much of Armstrong, with the same sort of delusional behaviour. As I have said many times on here, they see this as a test case. If they win this, they have a case against the NFL the U.S, which is not currently covered can by the WADA. They see that as the holy grail.

It does not make, I hasten to add, an unfair process - simply one where the behaviour is so outrageous they simply have to act, but in so doing they make a case internationally. WADA will not drop this ball. They see their case as watertight, and as a beacon as to how team sports will be required to operate in future.

In these circumstances, does anyone seriously believe CAS will hand down, if they are found guilty, 2-3 weeks?