My view is based on the principle of 'timely justice' coming into play in negotiating penalties between player reps and ASADA/WADA before going to the AFL Tribunal.

Neither the AFL or ASADA are involved in the current appeal.

The penalty is fixed at 2 years. There are some grounds for reduction, the only one possible would seem to be "no fault or negligence". But that will be (very) hard to make stick here, because the players have to establish that they did everything they could have and should have to make sure that there was no infringement.

Neither the AFL or ASADA are involved in the current appeal.

The penalty is fixed at 2 years. There are some grounds for reduction, the only one possible would seem to be "no fault or negligence". But that will be (very) hard to make stick here, because the players have to establish that they did everything they could have and should have to make sure that there was no infringement.

They can claim time served as its the same charge effectively.

2 years however IS the starting point. From Wadas view the date of the appeal is the starting point. If Afl dont stick thick it will be appealed. At this point however the 34 ought to be out of action...then it's only a matter of how long.

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

It's deplorable really and an abdication of duty for the AFL.

Not just derelict. ..delusional.

Neither the AFL or ASADA are involved in the current appeal.

The penalty is fixed at 2 years. There are some grounds for reduction, the only one possible would seem to be "no fault or negligence". But that will be (very) hard to make stick here, because the players have to establish that they did everything they could have and should have to make sure that there was no infringement.

You are right about CAS deciding the penalties...my bad.

But CAS will hear submissions about penalties prior to imposing them.

I understand where you are coming from on the rationale of 2 years.

I still lean to the view that a lesser penalty will be negotiated/appllied.

Will be interesting to see the final verdict/penalties.

I am hoping for a 12 month ban.

It wont hurt us too much, we can get by easily without Melksham for a season.

But it will completely screw the Bombers and write off another campaign for them.... of the 34 accused they still have Watson, Hurley, Heppell, Bellchambers, Hooker, Hibberd, Hoiwlett, Colyer, Pears, Myers and a couple more on their list.

They wont win a game if they lose them them all for the year.

Funny thing is...CAS will decide penalties. BUT Afl have to deliver them. Have no doubt they'll try and twist them to suit.....because they're dumbf!!ks.

If they do its appeal time. Damage done by then...only extent to argue

I still lean to the view that a lesser penalty will be negotiated/appllied.

There are no grounds in the rules for penalties to be negotiated. There are specific circumstances where they can be reduced.

Just the way it is.

Two old questions pop up as always. Brownlow and time on sidelines halfway through last season.

Will AFL have bravado with these issues?

It's deplorable really and an abdication of duty for the AFL.

Not just derelict. ..delusional.

Not sure about all the d's there, but there certainly should have been some clarification of the situation. Though perhaps there has that we don't know about. With the various trades, "the Essendon problem" starts to seep out into the wider AFL.

There are no grounds in the rules for penalties to be negotiated. There are specific circumstances where they can be reduced.

Just the way it is.

You sound quite authouritative 'bing' and I respect that.

Looks like we lose Jake Melksham for 2 years then!

Sad really, I was looking forward to seeing him play and helping us move up the ladder in the next few years.

Edited October 18, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero

There are no grounds in the rules for penalties to be negotiated. There are specific circumstances where they can be reduced.

Just the way it is.

Amuses me to see the suggestions is arbitrary.

There's a protocol for penalties...nit a loosey goosey guide

You sound quite authouritative 'bing' and I respect that.

Looks like we lose Jake Melksham for 2 years then!

Sad really, I was looking forward to seeing him play and helping us move up the ladder in the next few years.

and when he is ask the club wtf they were thinking. .i will

and when he is ask the club wtf they were thinking. .i will

My canary has told me the tram tickets are at the printers and all that needs to be sourced now is the plastic bucket.

Not sure about all the d's there, but there certainly should have been some clarification of the situation. Though perhaps there has that we don't know about. With the various trades, "the Essendon problem" starts to seep out into the wider AFL.

A D that was culpable. ..Demetriou

My canary has told me the tram tickets are at the printers and all that needs to be sourced now is the plastic bucket.

thats not how Wada works. Not how CAS adjudicates. It is i agree pure AFL.

Not their call now.

If Jake is suspended for any length of time, is he still entitled to be paid? If so by whom, Dees or Dons?

If Jake is suspended for any length of time, is he still entitled to be paid? If so by whom, Dees or Dons?

You'd like to do think that there's a clause in his contract makng it clear that his pay will be cut to the dole for any period of suspicion. I'd be very disappointed if the club hasn't protected itself from that eventuality. Of course whether or not the TPP is reduced is another matter altogether.

I'm surprised some journo hasn't jumped all over this issue for all of the 34 who have changed clubs.

I'm surprised some journo hasn't jumped all over this issue for all of the 34 who have changed clubs.

join the club hoopla

You sound quite authouritative 'bing' and I respect that.

I follow cycling. Lots of cases over the last 10 years or so.

Looks like we lose Jake Melksham for 2 years then!

Which will become, to all intents and purposes, a season - the next one.

Funny thing is...CAS will decide penalties. BUT Afl have to deliver them. Have no doubt they'll try and twist them to suit.....

There is no doubt that Gil "the Dealmaker" will attempt to massage the verdict. It's what he does. It's all he does!

You'd like to do think that there's a clause in his contract makng it clear that his pay will be cut to the dole for any period of suspicion. I'd be very disappointed if the club hasn't protected itself from that eventuality. Of course whether or not the TPP is reduced is another matter altogether.

I'm surprised some journo hasn't jumped all over this issue for all of the 34 who have changed clubs.

Apart from one or two, they are intellectually lazy and won't jump on this until the club they follow is affected by it.

The party line at the minute is, everyone's over the Essendrugs thing, and wowee, isn't this trade period a cracker? About Nov 15, they'll realise this thing is back on the front burner.

Apart from one or two, they are intellectually lazy and won't jump on this until the club they follow is affected by it.

The party line at the minute is, everyone's over the Essendrugs thing, and wowee, isn't this trade period a cracker? About Nov 15, they'll realise this thing is back on the front burner.

I think there is a lot of truth there. They are desperate for something to write about most of the time. So when they have something on the boil (trade period) they don't want to waste the stories they can roll out once that is over. But if that is the explanation they should be sacked given the potential interaction between CAS decisions and the trades.

I think there is a lot of truth there. .....

Much of it very inconvenient

Just waiting to see Essendon load up at the draft.

Replacing those who are left will be a problem but not as big a problem when the 34 were all on their list.

Perhaps AFL can assign each club one charged Essendon player so that the effect of any charge will be shared equally.

That St Kilda and Melbourne have pursued the two Jakes so strongly suggests to me that there might be a belief, at least within those two clubs, that the players will be found "not guilty" (I know that's not the actual finding, but I'm sure everyone knows what I mean). I admit its conjecture, but if the clubs had good reason to believe the Essendon players will not be punished, I would have thought not trying to procure Essendon talent would be a dereliction of duty.