Maybe. But don't forget it took ASADA an awful long time to do its investigation first.

Pretty hard to investigate when the evidence has been destroyed.

True, but we don't know how much of that could be put down to non-cooperation by EFC.

Also true.

Spare Bombers, AFL begs court

So the blueprint for beating a doping ban is to:

a) destroy records

b) drag out the process through spurious legal action

c) generate sympathetic media coverage

d) thumb your nose at authorities

e) obfuscate authorities at every opportunity

f) blame doping authorities for dragging the chain and for botching the investigation

That will work well for future cases. World sport will be ruined forever.

The players have not missed one game. Compare that to the many Olympians that have received long bans OR who have missed one Olympic games (effectively a life ban for many). They simply cannot let the players off. The major reason they have gone on this long is the actions of their own club and themselves.

Hird was pushed no doubt about it.

For Essendrug it is a risk they have decided to take

Hopefully now some inside truths will surface.

Who will talk first?

They will all talk at CAS - under oath! Now that should be interesting.

Maybe, but a lot of the questions that really need to be asked will not fall under the scope of this tribunal.

I would really like to know more about the AFL's involvement, the EFC and also the media involvement and connections to key players. Why Hird thinks he was hard done by, what is this truth that needs to come out...there are so many questions.

Why would you discount? It isn't as though any players have actually stood down from matches or had any (self-imposed) penalty!

I'm not saying I would discount and don't really like the concept but I do think it will be discounted due to the time taken to get to the end of the investigation.

Yes a lot of this has to do with EFC and Hird but ASADA also played some part in the delays and there are precedents for backdating at least part of the penalty.

Spare Bombers, AFL begs court

I don't see how Chip is delusional here, he is just reporting what the AFL have requested and reasons for it.

Some of his opinion pieces I don't agree with but this is a different matter.

Sometimes when reading post's on this thread it seems like I am reading the anti bomber blitz and it is just as delusional.

I will be very surprised to see EFC players getting a 2 year ban starting from the end of the hearing. If guilty they are more likely to get a 2 year or less ban backdated.

I don't see how Chip is delusional here, he is just reporting what the AFL have requested and reasons for it.

Some of his opinion pieces I don't agree with but this is a different matter.

Sometimes when reading post's on this thread it seems like I am reading the anti bomber blitz and it is just as delusional.

I will be very surprised to see EFC players getting a 2 year ban starting from the end of the hearing. If guilty they are more likely to get a 2 year or less ban backdated.

I said he is delusional if he thinks this AFL piece will make any difference to the outcome, as he has done many times before. It won't, but he seems to think it will which most do in Hird's camp, as he clearly is.

I'm happy to take the insult of being delusional if you like. I know who i'd back as to the outcome, and it won't be the Essendon players getting off as a result of the AFL's pleading to CAS, although there may be some minor backdating according to my sources

According to several legal opinions I have read recently on this, there appears to be a consensus that this time (ie at CAS) the Supreme Court will compell witnesses to testify under oath. You can assume therefore that those witnesses ASADA applied to the Supreme Court to compulsorily testify under oath will be drafted into the witness box this time as apparently the technicality which got them off earlier in the year no longer applies. This mainly relates to Dank, the pharmacists, and those who imported and sold beta4.

Can I suggest this will be like a pack of cards. Presuming these people tell the truth (which usually happens when you will be held in contempt if you don't), it will inevitably involve a number of accusations about others which may get those others to come forward to defend themselves, which may cause other to as well etc etc etc. With the skilled American counsel cross examining, silence or stone-walling would be difficult for anyone, this hopefully will lead to the truth.

Under these circumstances, I can't see how much of the hierarchy at Essendon, the AFL, ASADA, possibly the ACC and even government will not be called. It may not happen so extensively at the players' hearing, but when the non players are charged and this also ends up also at CAS, the whole thing will inevitably open up, and truth will out. Let's hope so anyway.

I wonder what weight or leverage can be gained from the original unsigned statements by Charters and others that were not tested in court first time around.

Can they change their story now without compromising themselves against what they previously said even though the statements eventually went unsigned?

Interesting maybe?

I wonder what weight or leverage can be gained from the original unsigned statements by Charters and others that were not tested in court first time around.

Can they change their story now without compromising themselves against what they previously said even though the statements eventually went unsigned?

Interesting maybe?

I think the point here is they are unsigned and not under oath. It is equivalent of making claims in the Press, which no one can verify, but if everyone was in a court of law under oath there might be a very different outcome. Contempt of court makes you into a criminal, which most don't want to be, although i acknowledge that a number of hird's associates were already criminals mostly to do with their illegal drug running.

And we (The AFL) will call this new Act "The AFL Statute of Limitations Special Essendon Provisions Part 1)

And we (the AFL) say under our breath, "if it wasn't for that darned ACC, we would have successfully covered up a club's wholesale team doping programme and we wouldn't be in this mess now."

Looking at the exchange between Robbo and James Magner, I can only conclude that Robbo is a grubby journalist of the worst kind: the type we see in too many places who run a particular agenda and do so under the guise of professional journalism. Yes, it's his job but by and large his newspaper has done the bidding of the Essendon Football Club propaganda machine and his recent attempts at muckraking against both Geelong and Melbourne when both have been fully investigated and cleared is nothing short of a disgrace. Full marks to James Magner for calling him out and exposing him for what he is, knowing that it's unlikely that the Herald Sun will write any fairy floss feel good stories about him while Robbo remains football editor.

I agree jack, & the ch-7 sports presenter is really putting me off watching ch-9; Er, ch-7, sorry, they are so similar these days, its like the same culture has infected ch-7,,, that was at ch-9.

maybe they could merge those 2 tv channels, so we don't have so much carp on tv..... better yet merge them & pack them off to Tassie, as that states representatives.

.... maybe James needs a holiday in Tassie, so he can reinvent himself. hope he takes her with him

Brock will always be remembered as the guy that essentially forced the AFL to investigate and eventually sanction us for (talking about) tanking. Those comments were too much to ignore and the irony that (I think) Nate Jones was meant to be on that night but pulled out is sickening.

But he loved the club and was clearly very close the Bailey and felt disgruntled with the direction the club was taking. I hope time can pass where he can be welcomed back the to club, he played his best footy for us, especially when he was delivering the ball straight down Neita's throat.

maybe Nate heard of the direction of questioning pre show ?

Maybe, but a lot of the questions that really need to be asked will not fall under the scope of this tribunal.

I would really like to know more about the AFL's involvement, the EFC and also the media involvement and connections to key players. Why Hird thinks he was hard done by, what is this truth that needs to come out...there are so many questions.

I wouldn't mind knowing if there was any Federal Government involvement (meaning at the political level), too.

I wouldn't mind knowing if there was any Federal Government involvement (meaning at the political level), too.

Same...that's another interesting one.

Same...that's another interesting one.

There is, and it is not pretty. After all, Rupert Murdoch is in town with his Essendon fanatical, Hird worshiping CEO of global News Limited, so of course Abbott is heavily involved.

What delights me is that they can have as many bitchy dinners as they like, plot their plots, rail against those ignorant and dangerous liberals, but it won't make a blind bit of difference.. In the end, their beloved Essendon and Hird will go down anyway!

There is, and it is not pretty. After all, Rupert Murdoch is in town with his Essendon fanatical, Hird worshiping CEO of global News Limited, so of course Abbott is heavily involved.

What delights me is that they can have as many bitchy dinners as they like, plot their plots, rail against those ignorant and dangerous liberals, but it won't make a blind bit of difference.. In the end, their beloved Essendon and Hird will go down anyway!

This saga has run over 2 flavours of government. I would be interested how both were involved including state governments...

This saga has run over 2 flavours of government. I would be interested how both were involved including state governments...

Every pollie: "Does this have the potential to bite me in the @rse somehow?" Yes = meddle manage it; no = doesn't register as an issue.

This saga has run over 2 flavours of government. I would be interested how both were involved including state governments...

The Victorian State government is inevitably involved for several reasons. First, the AFL is based in Victoria and is a major industry here, and so the Vic Government has a justifiable interest in the health of the game, and the Essendon saga has the potential still to seriously wound the game to the detriment of the Victorian economy and people. It is interesting that when Hird was sacked apparently the first person who was told, well before the Press Conference, was Denial Andrews. Secondly, Andrews himself is a prominent Essendon supporter, and a senior member of the Essendon coterie, and the convener of the "Spring Street Bombers", which is the alliance group of Essendon supporters in Victorian politics across party lines, and a major lobby group, which has been very active throughout this saga. Thirdly, the state government cannot help but being involved because WorkSafe is a state government body and comes under control of the relevant state minister. Whilst there is no evidence of direct interference in this area that I know of, although there have been rumours about it from time to time, Andrews is on record as saying, immediately after the AFL Tribunal verdict was announced, words to the affect "let's now move on, enough is enough!". Apparently, there were moves to shut down the WorkSafe investigation after this, but the unions would not allow it for understandable reasons. Fourthly, the federal government is involved because the extreme right wing of the Liberal Party (eg Alan Jones, and the global CEO of News Limited) have very strong views about this aka the whole ASADA/WADA regime "should be shut down or ignored", and Jones has been publicly urging Abbott to do so. Given Abbott's weak political position and his tendency to follow his instructions from the right, political interference federally has always been a strong possibility, although so far it has not happened to my knowledge, at least publicly. Paul Little though has strong links to the Federal Liberals and has in the past been a major donor to them. His lobbyists apparently have been active in Canberra throughout this saga. Further, the ACC is a federal government body, and has been heavily involved in this (rightly) from the beginning.

None of this implies impropriety or indeed corruption, it I think is no more than the cut and thrust of the political process, but it does not lessen the point that politics has always been involved in this, and for that we should all be vigilant. It also makes it all the more important that it now is outside the Australian political processes, at least at CAS, not of course at WorkSafe. And for that we should all be grateful.

I don't see how Chip is delusional here, he is just reporting what the AFL have requested and reasons for it. Some of his opinion pieces I don't agree with but this is a different matter.

Sometimes when reading post's on this thread it seems like I am reading the anti bomber blitz and it is just as delusional.

I will be very surprised to see EFC players getting a 2 year ban starting from the end of the hearing. If guilty they are more likely to get a 2 year or less ban backdated.

Why would you "backdate" or reduce any penalty? It is not as though they have been on remand or voluntarily even given up any home and away matches! Their only penalty (apart from being chucked out of the finals that they were never going to advance beyond the first round) was the farcical situation of not playing in the NAB Challenge in a publicity stunt. Let them take their due punishment I say and then let them sue the EFC!

Why would you "backdate" or reduce any penalty? It is not as though they have been on remand or voluntarily even given up any home and away matches! Their only penalty (apart from being chucked out of the finals that they were never going to advance beyond the first round) was the farcical situation of not playing in the NAB Challenge in a publicity stunt. Let them take their due punishment I say and then let them sue the EFC!

'CB' I don't like the idea of backdating or reducing the penalty at all, I'm not arguing for it.

However I do think this is what will happen.

The Victorian State government is inevitably involved for several reasons. First, the AFL is based in Victoria and is a major industry here, and so the Vic Government has a justifiable interest in the health of the game, and the Essendon saga has the potential still to seriously wound the game to the detriment of the Victorian economy and people. It is interesting that when Hird was sacked apparently the first person who was told, well before the Press Conference, was Denial Andrews. Secondly, Andrews himself is a prominent Essendon supporter, and a senior member of the Essendon coterie, and the convener of the "Spring Street Bombers", which is the alliance group of Essendon supporters in Victorian politics across party lines, and a major lobby group, which has been very active throughout this saga. Thirdly, the state government cannot help but being involved because WorkSafe is a state government body and comes under control of the relevant state minister. Whilst there is no evidence of direct interference in this area that I know of, although there have been rumours about it from time to time, Andrews is on record as saying, immediately after the AFL Tribunal verdict was announced, words to the affect "let's now move on, enough is enough!". Apparently, there were moves to shut down the WorkSafe investigation after this, but the unions would not allow it for understandable reasons. Fourthly, the federal government is involved because the extreme right wing of the Liberal Party (eg Alan Jones, and the global CEO of News Limited) have very strong views about this aka the whole ASADA/WADA regime "should be shut down or ignored", and Jones has been publicly urging Abbott to do so. Given Abbott's weak political position and his tendency to follow his instructions from the right, political interference federally has always been a strong possibility, although so far it has not happened to my knowledge, at least publicly. Paul Little though has strong links to the Federal Liberals and has in the past been a major donor to them. His lobbyists apparently have been active in Canberra throughout this saga. Further, the ACC is a federal government body, and has been heavily involved in this (rightly) from the beginning.

None of this implies impropriety or indeed corruption, it I think is no more than the cut and thrust of the political process, but it does not lessen the point that politics has always been involved in this, and for that we should all be vigilant. It also makes it all the more important that it now is outside the Australian political processes, at least at CAS, not of course at WorkSafe. And for that we should all be grateful.

Andrews is a leading member of the main EFC coterie group. Nuff said..

Andrews is a leading member of the main EFC coterie group. Nuff said..

if you mean the essendonians, then they have been mooted as a main agitator to cut hird loose

bomberblitz certainly think so

if you mean the essendonians, then they have been mooted as a main agitator to cut hird loose

bomberblitz certainly think so

Bomberblitz thinks?

if you mean the essendonians, then they have been mooted as a main agitator to cut hird loose

bomberblitz certainly think so

I understand this is correct, but it is a very recent phenomenon and has taken a hell of a long time to see the reality staring them in their face. Don't forget they agreed and I understand partly funded hird's "holiday" in Europe, plus his subsequent contract extension.

I understand this is correct, but it is a very recent phenomenon and has taken a hell of a long time to see the reality staring them in their face. Don't forget they agreed and I understand partly funded hird's "holiday" in Europe, plus his subsequent contract extension.

No, for Andrews it is not the Essendonian coterie...it is the 'Spring Street Bombers' which came into being last October.

Its a simple thing to check and get right.

Otherwise the generalisations in your other posts on this topic can easily be doubted.