Milkshake can only get a max of 2

Of which he's already served about 6 months.

WADA have a bunch of new evidence. The EFC lawyers are worried....

Yeah, true, they are as good as gone.

Of which he's already served about 6 months.

How has he served six months? Are you suggesting that continuing to train with the Club during the pre-season, playing practice matches (and presumably being paid by your Club) is a bonafide suspension? Surely in that case we can advise WADA that (the balance of) his suspension will be served in the next three pre-seasons (whilst we continue to allow him to train as Essendon did)!

Of which he's already served about 6 months.

has he...how

Source? Details?

Can't disclose. Trial begins in Nov and WADA are still forwarding new evidence to defence lawyers...

Can't disclose. Trial begins in Nov and WADA are still forwarding new evidence to defence lawyers...

well, without disclosing sauce how about a bit more meat on the new evidence claim

Hmmm i hope Milkshake is yet to sign on the dotted line yet....

Hmmm i hope Milkshake is yet to sign on the dotted line yet....

And the contract has 500 pages covering every possible worst case scenario!

Can't disclose. Trial begins in Nov and WADA are still forwarding new evidence to defence lawyers...

I have been wondering if there hasn't been a shift in the climate at Essendon because of this.

I cannot recall them EVER wanting to trade out players like they have this year and last. They have always been notoriously difficult to deal with at trade time.

Ryder & Crameri gone last year, Fletcher & Winderlich retired. Carlisle and Melksham supposed to move this year. Leuenberger in?.

They have been clearing out the 34 suspects quietly and replacing them with non- affected players.

Even if WADA hit them hard, they will be able to put a reasonable team on the park post trading and draft period this year.

Maybe that was the AFL's backup plan?

And the contract has 500 pages covering every possible worst case scenario!

You're thinking of hefty "if you get done for drugs" get-out clauses? Surely the club wouldn't be so foolish as not to?

well, without disclosing sauce how about a bit more meat on the new evidence claim

WADA are still conducting interviews going over old evidence etc. The defence team are somewhat shocked that new evidence is still flowing in. I suspect (but dont know) they will seek extra time to review it etc.

Didnt realise elliot Kavanagh wasnt one of the 34. Article in the hun yesterday. Took a stance and refused to take part. Interesting

Edited October 15, 20159 yr by biggestred

Sandor Earl (remember him?)

Just been given a 4 year ban backdated tp 2013 (which was the last time he played)

Interesting outcome.

I wonder, if Ess players are found 'guilty' if their penalties will also be backdated?

I guess it depends on the new evidence that jnr has referred to and what light it sheds on player 'honesty'.

It is highly probable that Ess players will be found to have different degrees of 'guilt' and therefore different penalties.

And, the more honest a player has been the more lenient the penalty.

So, we shouldn't assume that Melksham will receive a 2 year ban.

Note: Ess players served a 6 month 'provisional' suspension last year for which they will get credit.

FWIW, Ess will have about 10-12 affected players on their list in 2016.

There about 6-8 at other AFL teams.

My concern with Melksham is that the drugs affected his body in a way which stop him from consistently performing at his best...no 2012 Ess player has performed well in any AFL team in recent years.

Could be coincidence but then again...

Edited October 15, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Interesting outcome.

I wonder, if Ess players are found 'guilty' if their penalties will also be backdated?

I guess it depends on the new evidence that jnr has referred to and what light it sheds on player 'honesty'.

It is highly probable that Ess players will be found to have different degrees of 'guilt' and therefore different penalties.

And, the more honest a player has been the more lenient the penalty.

So, we shouldn't assume that Melksham will receive a 2 year ban.

Note: Ess players served a 6 month 'provisional' suspension last year for which they will get credit.

FWIW, Ess will have about 10-12 affected players on their list in 2016.

There about 6-8 at other AFL teams.

My concern with Melksham is that the drugs affected his body in a way which stop him from consistently performing at his best...no 2012 Ess player has performed well in any AFL team in recent years.

Could be coincidence but then again...

Are you sure they get credit, I certainly wouldn't assume as much as the credit they would have got would have been in a continuous block. As the suspension they served actually didn't suspend them from anything I can't see it being counted as credit if the periods of suspension are not continuous. Otherwise what is to stop us from appealing his suspension (allowing him to play) until the next pre season where he trains under a provisional suspension again. If he did this for a few years he would be through the two years and in the clear.

2 things.

1. With Kavanagh and Zaharakis not taking part in the program it is clear the responsibility lies with the players.

2. There is no way in hell the 6 months they had off over the last pre seasoncan count as they were still with their club etc etc. Dreaming.

This doesn't bode well at all considering who we have signed up today....i wonder if the whole contract is null & void once the WADA hammer comes down?

If the club is doing this with its fingers crossed i shall be very peeved off....

With Melksham now a Demon, it's time for some significant revisionism. If Melksham is one of the 34, I think we need to consider whether the players involved, particularly those who have shown their displeasure with the club by leaving it, have suffered enough already.

Where's Emile Zola when you need him?

Didnt realise elliot Kavanagh wasnt one of the 34. Article in the hun yesterday. Took a stance and refused to take part. Interesting

Interesting isn't it?? Some had the werewithall to refuse to go along with the programme.

Maybe the drug training they received kicked in. Maybe they spoke to their manager or Doctor or partner etc For mine that is damning on those that did take part in the programme and indicates they should not receive any of the sympathy that the football industry seems to want to give them.

Hang 'em high I say.

if Milkshake is one of the 34 he can damn well suck up his ban

has he...how

They were all provisionally suspended once infraction notices were issued. Which is why they didn't play any NAB matches (for example).

From what I can see, it was from mid-November till the end of March, so actually more like 4½ months.

They were all provisionally suspended once infraction notices were issued. Which is why they didn't play any NAB matches (for example).

From what I can see, it was from mid-November till the end of March, so actually more like 4½ months.

more like it

if Milkshake is one of the 34 he can damn well suck up his ban

If there is a ban it will be back dated and there will be bugger all missed games!

No OD. If given say 2 years...they can DEDUCT time served ( voluntary suspensions )

Thats it. They're doing time. I know we differ.

No OD. If given say 2 years...they can DEDUCT time served ( voluntary suspensions )

Thats it. They're doing time. I know we differ.

Can they deduct it if the time period is not continuous? My understanding is they can't but am certainly not sure of it.

No OD. If given say 2 years...they can DEDUCT time served ( voluntary suspensions )

Thats it. They're doing time. I know we differ.

There is one certainty in this bb

One of us is going to be wrong