On 16/10/2015 at 01:40, old dee said:

Surely it is all guilty or none.

how does half work.

The players that have left the club go belly up and cop a plea.

  On 16/10/2015 at 02:36, Chris said:

All the players still playing provisionally suspended themselves during the off season last year, no news if they have, or can do the same this year. You are right that they need to inform the AFL/ASADA that they are doing this.

This suspension is available to the player during their trial so that they can come back sooner, the condition of the suspension is that they can not play but they can train. This is so if they are found to be not guilty then they resume playing without any loss of condition on training. Essentially they are suspended without loosing anything other than competition time. It makes sense.

I can't see how this could possibly be included in any suspension coming from the appeal. Their provisional suspension cost them nothing the first time as they were found not guilty and to count it now goes against the intent of suspending people. If they can count it then they could in essence keep appealing so the timing means they serve 2 years in the off season, while still training, and then claim it all and play on. I could be wrong but am fairly sure I read somewhere when WADA appealed that the provisional suspension is off the table.

If a defendant in a criminal proceeding is remanded in custody I would expect that the time served would be counted whether he's found guilty at the first trial or on a subsequent appeal. Otherwise it's double punishment. So for the Essendon/WADA matter it makes sense to me that any previous voluntary suspension should still be counted as it's all part of the one (albeit extremely long) proceeding.

  On 16/10/2015 at 03:43, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If a defendant in a criminal proceeding is remanded in custody I would expect that the time served would be counted whether he's found guilty at the first trial or on a subsequent appeal. Otherwise it's double punishment. So for the Essendon/WADA matter it makes sense to me that any previous voluntary suspension should still be counted as it's all part of the one (albeit extremely long) proceeding.

a year longer than it should have been because of a certain Mr. Hird

  On 16/10/2015 at 03:43, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If a defendant in a criminal proceeding is remanded in custody I would expect that the time served would be counted whether he's found guilty at the first trial or on a subsequent appeal. Otherwise it's double punishment. So for the Essendon/WADA matter it makes sense to me that any previous voluntary suspension should still be counted as it's all part of the one (albeit extremely long) proceeding.

Understood, there was no real punishment though, they went about their business as usual. It was also a provisional punishment, although you could say remand is provisional as well.

  On 16/10/2015 at 03:43, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If a defendant in a criminal proceeding is remanded in custody I would expect that the time served would be counted whether he's found guilty at the first trial or on a subsequent appeal. Otherwise it's double punishment. So for the Essendon/WADA matter it makes sense to me that any previous voluntary suspension should still be counted as it's all part of the one (albeit extremely long) proceeding.

thats fair

So is 2 years

  On 16/10/2015 at 03:46, Chris said:

Understood, there was no real punishment though, they went about their business as usual. It was also a provisional punishment, although you could say remand is provisional as well.

this is it hey..The "claytons' suspension....but alas one that I have no doubt the AFL will want taken into consideration.

  On 16/10/2015 at 03:49, beelzebub said:

this is it hey..The "claytons' suspension....but alas one that I have no doubt the AFL will want taken into consideration.

The AFL will take into account all non game days if they can get away with it. I can't believe I am saying this but if only the AFL had the same attitude to drugs in sport that the NRL has.

I just do not understand how any of the 34 players were allowed to be traded at all before a WADA decision has been made..

If they are found guilty which they should be, The MFC and any other club who is committed to a contract are the main clubs penalized...and not Essendrug...

The whole thing is just sitting right on the edge...How can any of these clubs sign these players up with ANY confidence

The EFC is going up in front of THE WORLD ANTI DOPING AUTHORITY next month & we The MFC have just signed one of the accused to a 4 year deal.....

Could be a few angry questions asked at the AGM & rightly so...

  On 16/10/2015 at 06:14, Sir Why You Little said:

I just do not understand how any of the 34 players were allowed to be traded at all before a WADA decision has been made..

If they are found guilty which they should be, The MFC and any other club who is committed to a contract are the main clubs penalized...and not Essendrug...

The whole thing is just sitting right on the edge...How can any of these clubs sign these players up with ANY confidence

The EFC is going up in front of THE WORLD ANTI DOPING AUTHORITY next month & we The MFC have just signed one of the accused to a 4 year deal.....

Could be a few angry questions asked at the AGM & rightly so...

well technically the clubs are irrelevant as far as current charges are concerned. it's only about players

so if found guilty, players get suspended

clubs are collateral damage

now in essendon's case we know the club is involved, but as it stands this is not what the wada charges reflect

like you i can't understand why any club would trade in essendon players with this matter outstanding

and if they did i would expect it at massive discounts to reflect the risk

ffs it's not even discussed by the media as an issue which is just plain weird

^ Head in Sand strategy.

  On 16/10/2015 at 06:31, daisycutter said:

well technically the clubs are irrelevant as far as current charges are concerned. it's only about players

so if found guilty, players get suspended

clubs are collateral damage

now in essendon's case we know the club is involved, but as it stands this is not what the wada charges reflect

like you i can't understand why any club would trade in essendon players with this matter outstanding

and if they did i would expect it at massive discounts to reflect the risk

ffs it's not even discussed by the media as an issue which is just plain weird

More than weird. Beyond belief - something must be up.

  On 16/10/2015 at 06:31, daisycutter said:

well technically the clubs are irrelevant as far as current charges are concerned. it's only about players

so if found guilty, players get suspended

clubs are collateral damage

now in essendon's case we know the club is involved, but as it stands this is not what the wada charges reflect

like you i can't understand why any club would trade in essendon players with this matter outstanding

and if they did i would expect it at massive discounts to reflect the risk

ffs it's not even discussed by the media as an issue which is just plain weird

We lose a player for x amount of time...Essendrug get our draft pick

If Melksham is suspended for 12 months WE are a player down...

Like i said...The AFL should have suspended the 34 from any trading until the WADA findings are completed...

  On 16/10/2015 at 07:08, Sir Why You Little said:

We lose a player for x amount of time...Essendrug get our draft pick

If Melksham is suspended for 12 months WE are a player down...

Like i said...The AFL should have suspended the 34 from any trading until the WADA findings are completed...

That would have been unfair (or distorting) to the clubs and the players if they get off or have negligible penalties. The AFL should have (and maybe have) a scheme to compensate the clubs who take EFC players in some way. Maybe there is no 100% solution, but some obvious ideas would be for the AFL to pay the salaries of the suspended players, allow extra players in the squads etc.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I didn't spot it. Interesting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-drugs-saga-wada-boss-says-support-staff-the-real-bad-guys-not-players/story-fni5f22o-1227571065606

I reckon the Micky Mouse punishments for players are back on the table now that Hird and Co are finally gone and the deal has been done. Expect some harsh condemnation of Hird and his ilk.

  On 16/10/2015 at 07:18, sue said:

That would have been unfair (or distorting) to the clubs and the players if they get off or have negligible penalties. The AFL should have (and maybe have) a scheme to compensate the clubs who take EFC players in some way. Maybe there is no 100% solution, but some obvious ideas would be for the AFL to pay the salaries of the suspended players, allow extra players in the squads etc.

Well one would hope so...because the hearings start in about 3 weeks...and i am sure WADA will not give a dingoes kidney as to whether any of the 34 named players are now working for another club, so if the AFL are going to kick in a plan B they had better start drafting it this weekend..

  On 16/10/2015 at 07:22, sue said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I didn't spot it. Interesting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-drugs-saga-wada-boss-says-support-staff-the-real-bad-guys-not-players/story-fni5f22o-1227571065606

interesting coming from the boss. Does it come down to what the players signed?

I was hoping they would take into account the first 10-12 weeks of the 2012 season where Essendrug were clearly playing under the influence of Danks Cocktail before the hammies and muscles started to sieze and tear....

  On 16/10/2015 at 07:22, sue said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I didn't spot it. Interesting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-drugs-saga-wada-boss-says-support-staff-the-real-bad-guys-not-players/story-fni5f22o-1227571065606

good catch sue

i didn't see that in today's hard copy edition

i wonder if it is an online story only? will check tomorrow's paper

Looks like The first round of the tram ticket penalties to me. excuses have started.

  On 16/10/2015 at 06:31, daisycutter said:

well technically the clubs are irrelevant as far as current charges are concerned. it's only about players

so if found guilty, players get suspended

clubs are collateral damage

now in essendon's case we know the club is involved, but as it stands this is not what the wada charges reflect

like you i can't understand why any club would trade in essendon players with this matter outstanding

and if they did i would expect it at massive discounts to reflect the risk

ffs it's not even discussed by the media as an issue which is just plain weird

Not surprising the media don't mention it. All the reporters rely on AFL endorsement to get access to players and the clubs, if they annoy the AFL enough the endorsement doesn't get renewed, kind of like a North Korean Journo really!

  On 16/10/2015 at 07:22, sue said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I didn't spot it. Interesting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-drugs-saga-wada-boss-says-support-staff-the-real-bad-guys-not-players/story-fni5f22o-1227571065606

This sounds like light punishments on the way right up until he mentions they are like the cyclists. He admits they were not to blame as the docs all but forced them to use, didn't stop the riders getting lengthy periods off. That would point to softening up the public, who have fed crap by our media about these poor boys, to the very real possibility they will have lengthy sentences in line with international precedents.

  On 16/10/2015 at 09:17, Chris said:

This sounds like light punishments on the way right up until he mentions they are like the cyclists. He admits they were not to blame as the docs all but forced them to use, didn't stop the riders getting lengthy periods off. That would point to softening up the public, who have fed crap by our media about these poor boys, to the very real possibility they will have lengthy sentences in line with international precedents.

well he didn't say they are not to blame or blameless

what he did say is that support staff are the really bad guys

  On 16/10/2015 at 09:28, daisycutter said:

well he didn't say they are not to blame or blameless

what he did say is that support staff are the really bad guys

I missed a word, it is meant to say 'not entirely to blame'. Whoops.

  On 16/10/2015 at 01:15, Crompton said:

I'm sure all Demonlanders will join with me as we restate our deeply-held long-term belief that these innocently duped players have suffered enough and should be free and unencumbered to play on next year

  On 16/10/2015 at 01:41, old dee said:

Especially since one of them is now a dee!

Not for me - my stance hasn't changed one iota - if Melksham is guilty and has to serve a ban, so be it. In fact, if that does happen then it will be quite interesting to see the reaction here.

It's about the greater good and if you're a drug cheat, you're a drug cheat. I've got no time for athletes who transgress the drug code. We can wish all we like for ideal outcomes but whatever happens from the CAS hearing may or may not be ideal.

None of us know for sure whether all or some of the 34 will be found guilty and none of us know what the penalties might be if they are found guilty. Those preaching a definitive outcome are guessing.

.

Maybe Melksham can be the hero of the AFL and dob in the a$$wipes who did this to him and his young family.

Reduced sentence for assisting authorities, etc.