Imho if they get 2 years the afl and the efc are at fault. Both have told the competition that the players are fine.

  On 28/11/2015 at 13:13, biggestred said:

Imho if they get 2 years the afl and the efc are at fault. Both have told the competition that the players are fine.

certainly Essendon. ..they DID it.

The afl must take some blame for how the debacle panned out though.

Essendon and the AFL are hoping that they will be getting a bulk discount.

  On 28/11/2015 at 13:13, biggestred said:

Imho if they get 2 years the afl and the efc are at fault. Both have told the competition that the players are fine.

So what is your opinion on the actual outcome? All bias and favour aside

I reckon they'll be found guilty but the penalties won't be too harsh (in relative terms) But I may be completely wrong.

CAS will have to place the PED's at the EFC you'd reckon and that might be hard to prove ... or it may not be hard to prove. Then they have to be comfortably satisfied that the players were administered with these PED's.

With so many injections taking place, who knows who got injected with what? The murkiness becomes an ally for the players - like it or not, that's how it could be seen.

On the surface it's been a well planned out exercise by Essendon but ultimately it's still going to cost them a lot - they haven't even reached a point where they can start recovering yet.

Theyll get 2 years minus time served.

Thats approx 19+half months starting from when judgement given.Takes them out until end of season 2017 all but.

Thays always been my opinion.

  On 28/11/2015 at 13:49, beelzebub said:

Theyll get 2 years minus time served.

Thats approx 19+half months starting from when judgement given.Takes them out until end of season 2017 all but.

Thays always been my opinion.

They'll get some sort of "no significant fault" discount of 6 months, perhaps (though unlikely IMHO) 12 months.

That would make it more like 13+ months.

They'll miss a season. In part why Melksham was offered a 4 year deal IMHO. Would be interested to see the details of the contract.

  On 28/11/2015 at 14:11, bing181 said:

They'll get some sort of "no significant fault" discount of 6 months, perhaps (though unlikely IMHO) 12 months.

That would make it more like 13+ months.

They'll miss a season. In part why Melksham was offered a 4 year deal IMHO. Would be interested to see the details of the contract.

And if the AFL allow the EFC to replace their banned* players with other players for the length of the bans then you'd assume we'd be able to do the same for Melksham.

*Assuming they do get bans

This is what we have been wobbling on about since the afl's tribunals corrupt decision. Looks like the bombers are in trouble. Melksham a bust?

  Quote

"Quite simply, if the BALCO cases had been decided under the principles followed by the AFL tribunal, none of the BALCO people would have been sanctioned," Howman said as the CAS panel continues deliberations ahead of a verdict announcement expected before Christmas.

"For us, the key issue [in appealing the AFL tribunal finding] was: can investigations be done in a way that BALCO and a whole lot of other previous cases were run? Or, is there going to be a significant change due to the way the AFL tribunal decided it? Because that would change the whole way that we put cases before courts.

"The standard of proof that was used in the cases that led to the first non-analytical sanctions [through BALCO] was quite different to the proof used in the AFL tribunal. So we are trying to find out what the correct standard is under the [WADA] Code.

"That puts it into perspective. It's a big principle."

That is a big statement from WADA to liken the case to BALCO which caught some of the biggest names in athletics.

I wonder when the interview was actually done, would have been a big news day of this was in Friday's paper...

Can we trust Milkshake to run the drinks for a season?

Or too risky?

The question about the possibility of sanctions against Melksham was asked of Jason Taylor at the club's recent pre draft function and the response was that the club had advice that the possibility of any major sanction was low.

I don't know what source such advice came from but, after a long time in the law, I can say that I would never give that advice to anyone.

Roos might take the wrap for the trade of Melksham but in a pre-draft interview Garry Lyon asked Goodwin if Melksham was a 'captains pick'.

Goodwin side-stepped the question and said something like he had worked with Melksham and could add to the discussion etc.

I interpreted the answer that it was Goodwin's call.

But does it matter who pushed for him?

If Melksham performs well when he plays it was worth while.

We will just have to pretend that he is injured, if suspended.

As a footnote, I'm quite surprised that the WADA chief would give those opinions while deliberations are still happening.

  On 28/11/2015 at 21:52, Whispering_Jack said:

The question about the possibility of sanctions against Melksham was asked of Jason Taylor at the club's recent pre draft function and the response was that the club had advice that the possibility of any major sanction was low.

I don't know what source such advice came from but, after a long time in the law, I can say that I would never give that advice to anyone.

When clubs pick up guys like Crameri & Monfries, and then we pick up Melksham ... maybe some clubs are stupid but not all. They would want some assurance that they're not just playing one short ...

And who would they go to for assurance? Essendon? Of course they'll give a thumbs up, who would trust them? So they go to the AFL. "Tell us we're not setting ourselves up for a fall." "No worries. It's sorted. We're taking care of it. They may cop a guilty but there won't be any missed games. No probs."

This could backfire on the AFL big time. There'll be a queue of angry clubs.

  On 28/11/2015 at 10:38, Buffalo said:

Uh-Oh chongo, the game is up - definitely NOT good news for the Dons (or Milkshake I'm afraid)..

WADA likens Essendon to BALCO case

In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest Hulett and Wagner were drafted just in case Melksham got suspended.

Seriously??

I would go as far as saying they were drafted because we liked them and we had spots on our list....

  On 28/11/2015 at 10:38, Buffalo said:

Uh-Oh chongo, the game is up - definitely NOT good news for the Dons (or Milkshake I'm afraid)..

WADA likens Essendon to BALCO case

In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest Hulett and Wagner were drafted just in case Melksham got suspended.

"The standard of proof that was used in the cases that led to the first non-analytical sanctions [through BALCO] was quite different to the proof used in the AFL tribunal. So we are trying to find out what the correct standard is under the [WADA] Code."

Is he saying that the standard applied by the tribunal was quite different or that the evidence used was different?

  On 28/11/2015 at 22:29, Ted Fidge said:

When clubs pick up guys like Crameri & Monfries, and then we pick up Melksham ... maybe some clubs are stupid but not all. They would want some assurance that they're not just playing one short ...

And who would they go to for assurance? Essendon? Of course they'll give a thumbs up, who would trust them? So they go to the AFL. "Tell us we're not setting ourselves up for a fall." "No worries. It's sorted. We're taking care of it. They may cop a guilty but there won't be any missed games. No probs."

This could backfire on the AFL big time. There'll be a queue of angry clubs.

Correct. A club would trust the AFL more than EFC. But would a club really believe the AFL had inside knowledge on the penalties sufficient to take a tainted player with no concerns. I think not.

I think it is far more likely that the AFL has offered some sort of compensation to any club brave enough to spread the pain from EFC in 2016. The AFL must have a plan how to run EFC in 2016 if a swathe of players are rubbed out. Maybe it would be a variant of that.

  On 28/11/2015 at 22:51, sue said:

Correct. A club would trust the AFL more than EFC. But would a club really believe the AFL had inside knowledge on the penalties sufficient to take a tainted player with no concerns. I think not.

I think it is far more likely that the AFL has offered some sort of compensation to any club brave enough to spread the pain from EFC in 2016. The AFL must have a plan how to run EFC in 2016 if a swathe of players are rubbed out. Maybe it would be a variant of that.

lol - leap of faith there sue. gill may be good at praying but not sure about the rest

  On 28/11/2015 at 22:54, daisycutter said:

lol - leap of faith there sue. gill may be good at praying but not sure about the rest

Fun to poke fun at old'Gil. But if he doesn't have a plan, he just as well clear his desk now because he will be sacked and the AFL sued by Fox and Ten. My only worry is that they might have a plan but it may not be equitable and adjusted on the fly to suit big clubs. Which club did Monfries go to? (Sorry, I take little notice of non-MFC news)?

  On 28/11/2015 at 22:14, Lucifer said:

As a footnote, I'm quite surprised that the WADA chief would give those opinions while deliberations are still happening.

Not really surprising, Luce. He's describing what's at stake for WADA in the appeal. That won't compromise the court's deliberations and it doesn't breach the secrecy of the proceedings.

It pizzes me off that we continue to tangle ourselves up in this BS.
1st with the doc and Trengoves foot.
Then getting Goodwin.
Now trading in Melksham.

Essendon should've been treated like they have the plague.

  On 28/11/2015 at 21:52, Whispering_Jack said:

The question about the possibility of sanctions against Melksham was asked of Jason Taylor at the club's recent pre draft function and the response was that the club had advice that the possibility of any major sanction was low.

I don't know what source such advice came from but, after a long time in the law, I can say that I would never give that advice to anyone.

Jack.. its always been my thinking that the AFL and the Clubs alike are caught in their own vortex of "she'll be right".

There seems a groupthink that fails to understand what the Code and Asada/Wada are really about. It borders on the dismissive.

Doesn't surprise me it was based on such ad ice as it was the only plausible reason it would go ahead.

Shows we still have some dumb as dogshlt advisors at the club as well as ppl prepared to accept it.

This is a black mark on this club if this is the case.

Gump has it....stupid is as stupid does.

Taking Milkshake was just stupid.

Interesting in that this points to this case being somewhat of a test case and that WADA feel the way the AFL dealt with it didn't line up with any precedent set. Sounds like WADA went in and said here is a precedent under which the players are done, it is up to you CAS to decide if the precedent is right or if it needs changing because to find them not guilty then you are changing the precedent.

Can't see CAS doing that. I think the players will get around 12 months on the sidelines and that is due to the AFL. Their ban would be two years of it were not for the AFL training that said the players need to check with the club, not ASADA. The players checked with the club as they were instructed wrongly to do by the AFL, that gives them the no reasonable negligence to me.

It wouldn't surprise me, if, as WJ says "that the possibility of any major sanction was low" in regard to Melksham means more.

I have a feeling more tangible evidence is out there than we know. This is good for footy and bad for Essendon because the guilt of playing groups is but one step.

  On 28/11/2015 at 13:41, hardtack said:

Essendon and the AFL are hoping that they will be getting a bulk discount.

If found guilty they will get that bulk discount for a number of reasons including delay, time served player co- operation etc.

  On 29/11/2015 at 00:47, Redleg said:

If found guilty they will get that bulk discount for a number of reasons including delay, time served player co- operation etc.

Knowing Essendons' chutzpah, they will ask for a bulk discount on the basis of the large number of players involved.