I'm most interested in the line "without receiving proper consent from its players".

I'm taking the Herald Sun story at face value, but I can see how that might also have been used by the club and the players in their arguments in front of CAS. I could see the players giving evidence that they consented to being injected with various things that they checked were legal and were never told about and therefore never consented to any illegal supplements. Whether they were given illegal supplements or not (I could see them arguing) was unknown to them because all they thought they were being given was what Dank told them he was injecting them with, which, they thought, was the stuff they had checked with ASADA and been told was legal.

It's all supposition on my part, but I've believed all along that it is quite possible that if the players were injected with something illegal, it was without the players' and possibly the club's knowledge. It makes sense to me that any person providing the illegal injections wouldn't tell anyone that what he was using was illegal and that if he indeed did break there law, he did so to improve his own standing in the industry by "working miracles" with what he does. If that's the case, I still believe the provider of those illegal supplements should end up in gaol.

Under the WADA code it does not matter whether you knew or consented. If you took illegal substances you are guilty, whether inadvertently or not. It is up to the individual to police this, and all professional athletes who practice under WADA rules have this drummed into them time and time again. No excuses -guilty!

As far as the coaches, medical staff are concerned, they have a duty of care to their athletes which given the latest Workcover case this has clearly been breached. I can see substantial litigation stemming from that alone, never mind CAS. It is curious though that WC appears to have let them off so lightly. Any one who has had anything to do with Workcover wrt running a factory in Victoria knows how feral many of their inspectors are, often aided and abetted by unions. Everyone seems to have gone quiet on this one when it comes to Worksafe penalties. Curious, but I bet it has been noted by CAS.

Under the WADA code it does not matter whether you knew or consented. If you took illegal substances you are guilty, whether inadvertently or not. It is up to the individual to police this, and all professional athletes who practice under WADA rules have this drummed into them time and time again. No excuses -guilty!

As far as the coaches, medical staff are concerned, they have a duty of care to their athletes which given the latest Workcover case this has clearly been breached. I can see substantial litigation stemming from that alone, never mind CAS. It is curious though that WC appears to have let them off so lightly. Any one who has had anything to do with Workcover wrt running a factory in Victoria knows how feral many of their inspectors are, often aided and abetted by unions. Everyone seems to have gone quiet on this one when it comes to Worksafe penalties. Curious, but I bet it has been noted by CAS.

I sense WS were nobbled a tad

Words were spoken into certain ears by certain others.

If this hasn't transpired then they ought to have been hit for 6.... all we got were leg byes !!

Under the WADA code it does not matter whether you knew or consented. If you took illegal substances you are guilty, whether inadvertently or not. It is up to the individual to police this, and all professional athletes who practice under WADA rules have this drummed into them time and time again. No excuses -guilty!

As far as the coaches, medical staff are concerned, they have a duty of care to their athletes which given the latest Workcover case this has clearly been breached. I can see substantial litigation stemming from that alone, never mind CAS. It is curious though that WC appears to have let them off so lightly. Any one who has had anything to do with Workcover wrt running a factory in Victoria knows how feral many of their inspectors are, often aided and abetted by unions. Everyone seems to have gone quiet on this one when it comes to Worksafe penalties. Curious, but I bet it has been noted by CAS.

You raise an interesting point with your last line. Could CAS take notice of today's court action after the CAS hearing has concluded? In other words, could the fact of the Bombers pleading guilty inform the CAS decision or is it too late given the CAS hearing concluded prior to today's Magistrates' Court matter? I would have thought it was too late.

You raise an interesting point with your last line. Could CAS take notice of today's court action after the CAS hearing has concluded? In other words, could the fact of the Bombers pleading guilty inform the CAS decision or is it too late given the CAS hearing concluded prior to today's Magistrates' Court matter? I would have thought it was too late.

not really..They said they would front on this day and plead guilty....they said this a few weeks back ( I think..Nov 9 or such )

CAS would have known this

Based on the Armstrong precedent ...

What Armstrong precedent?

In the Armstrong case, the non-cyclists (support staff) involved were all charged at the same time as part of the same process.

If there was a case against Goodwin or any other support staff, they would already have been charged - as Dank has been.

The current case is the end of it for the players and any/all individuals involved, and the AFL have already punished Essendon as a club.

CAS is influencable right up until they table their findings. They after all are taking time now to "consider their verdict" to coin a phrase. Whether formal or informal, they could not fail to notice the WC activity.

CAS is influencable right up until they table their findings. They after all are taking time now to "consider their verdict" to coin a phrase. Whether formal or informal, they could not fail to notice the WC activity.

what happened in the wc....do tell

what happened in the wc....do tell

Well Old's wet tram ticket finally got used !!

Under the WADA code it does not matter whether you knew or consented. If you took illegal substances you are guilty, whether inadvertently or not. It is up to the individual to police this, and all professional athletes who practice under WADA rules have this drummed into them time and time again. No excuses -guilty!

As far as the coaches, medical staff are concerned, they have a duty of care to their athletes which given the latest Workcover case this has clearly been breached. I can see substantial litigation stemming from that alone, never mind CAS. It is curious though that WC appears to have let them off so lightly. Any one who has had anything to do with Workcover wrt running a factory in Victoria knows how feral many of their inspectors are, often aided and abetted by unions. Everyone seems to have gone quiet on this one when it comes to Worksafe penalties. Curious, but I bet it has been noted by CAS.

As I understand it the amount of the penalties is set by the legislation. The only discretion is whether to go to the maximum or less. The amount quoted is the maximum in the legislation. They may get less.

no mystery - just that Essendon has in effect admitted guilt in the WorkCover (WC) case. They have not done that before, particularly not Hird.

IMHO, it opens up the case considerably.

What Armstrong precedent?

In the Armstrong case, the non-cyclists (support staff) involved were all charged at the same time as part of the same process.

If there was a case against Goodwin or any other support staff, they would already have been charged - as Dank has been.

The current case is the end of it for the players and any/all individuals involved, and the AFL have already punished Essendon as a club.

I think you are wrong here.

The Essendon Football Club have been charged under the AFL rules in relation to the supplements program at the club in 2011/2012. They are all charged with engaging in conduct that is unbecoming or is likely to prejudice the reputation of the Australian Football League, or to bring the game of football into disrepute, contrary to AFL rule 1.6.

"As such, at the present time, there will be no infraction notices issued under the AFL anti-doping code. I know the investigation into Essendon's 2011/2012 supplements program by ASADA and the AFL remains open and could lead to further charges under the AFL rules, against other individuals. Infraction notices under the AFL anti-doping code, against individual Essendon players or other persons, could also result if further information comes to hand

The punishment was not for taking banned drugs. It was for bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL can add new charges if further information comes to light.

I think you are wrong here.

The Essendon Football Club have been charged under the AFL rules in relation to the supplements program at the club in 2011/2012. They are all charged with engaging in conduct that is unbecoming or is likely to prejudice the reputation of the Australian Football League, or to bring the game of football into disrepute, contrary to AFL rule 1.6.

"As such, at the present time, there will be no infraction notices issued under the AFL anti-doping code. I know the investigation into Essendon's 2011/2012 supplements program by ASADA and the AFL remains open and could lead to further charges under the AFL rules, against other individuals. Infraction notices under the AFL anti-doping code, against individual Essendon players or other persons, could also result if further information comes to hand

The punishment was not for taking banned drugs. It was for bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL can add new charges if further information comes to light.

The same AFL that asked for zero, or token penalties for any players guilty of using illegal, performance enhancing drugs?

Yep, I reckon they will be falling over themselves to bring more charges......

The punishment was not for taking banned drugs. It was for bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL can add new charges if further information comes to light.

First up, there isn't and won't be any new information, no-one's going to suddenly turn up with a 3 year old vial of TB4 that was at the back of someone's locker. Secondly, as for "new charges", what kind of charges? If it's for/against individuals, that's already been covered.

Finally, as to what Essendon were punished for, it was clear what it was for, in the same way that it was clear what our $500K fine was for. Essendon as a club couldn't have been charged for implementing a banned drug program, because that hadn't been proved (and still hasn't), but they certainly weren't barred from the finals and draft picks etc. etc. because they'd been a bit sloppy in the accounting department.

First up, there isn't and won't be any new information, no-one's going to suddenly turn up with a 3 year old vial of TB4 that was at the back of someone's locker. Secondly, as for "new charges", what kind of charges? If it's for/against individuals, that's already been covered.

Finally, as to what Essendon were punished for, it was clear what it was for, in the same way that it was clear what our $500K fine was for. Essendon as a club couldn't have been charged for implementing a banned drug program, because that hadn't been proved (and still hasn't), but they certainly weren't barred from the finals and draft picks etc. etc. because they'd been a bit sloppy in the accounting department.

The EFC would not accept any charges or punishment from the AFL that included anything to do with 'banned substances', inadvertently they opened themselves up to further punishment if it is proven that they too said 'banned substances'. I agree that the AFL won't follow through with it but only because they an inept organisation devoid of any ability to actually do what is best for the game. The option is open to them though.

The same AFL that asked for zero, or token penalties for any players guilty of using illegal, performance enhancing drugs?

Yep, I reckon they will be falling over themselves to bring more charges......

The AFL won't bring any more changes. No no no.

Fortunately we have the newly invigorated ASADA to do that

First up, there isn't and won't be any new information, no-one's going to suddenly turn up with a 3 year old vial of TB4 that was at the back of someone's locker. Secondly, as for "new charges", what kind of charges? If it's for/against individuals, that's already been covered.

Finally, as to what Essendon were punished for, it was clear what it was for, in the same way that it was clear what our $500K fine was for. Essendon as a club couldn't have been charged for implementing a banned drug program, because that hadn't been proved (and still hasn't), but they certainly weren't barred from the finals and draft picks etc. etc. because they'd been a bit sloppy in the accounting department.

Firstly your post comes across as quite beligerent. And you make several statements of 'fact' that are in fact incorrect.

This whole WADA investigation is 'de novo' - ie: from scratch. I have it first hand that there is a lot of new evidence so I am not sure where you are getting your information from. WADA have done new interviews and can bring any new evidence they deem relevant. As well as treat any existing evidence in any way they want.

If WADA find the EFC guilty to their comfortable satisfaction - which may well be a different level of comfortable staisafaction to the AFL tribunal - the AFL will have to hand down the penalties as I understand it. If the players are found guilty then the EFC - who have not been punished for running a banned drug program - will most likely have to be punished further.

Now they may decide they have been punished enough. The AFL want this to go away after all. But they would be within their rights and I think under pressure to punish the club further.

If WADA find the EFC guilty to their comfortable satisfaction ... etc.

I understand about the "de novo" part, but equally, I don't know that there's going anything that fundamentally changes the substance of the charges against the players to the extent that the club would be seen in a different light by WADA/ASADA. The AFL? They're doing everything they can to make this go away, so not much joy there.

As to facts ...

a) It's not WADA who will find anyone guilty, it's the CAS.

b) it's not EFC who are facing charges, but (ex) Essendon players.

c) it's not the AFL who hand down penalties, it's CAS (again). The AFL will have to impose them and enforce them, but CAS sets them - which is one of the reasons the AFL made a submission.

As to belligerent ... not my intention, sorry if it comes across that way.

I understand about the "de novo" part, but equally, I don't know that there's going anything that fundamentally changes the substance of the charges against the players to the extent that the club would be seen in a different light by WADA/ASADA. The AFL? They're doing everything they can to make this go away, so not much joy there.

As to facts ...

a) It's not WADA who will find anyone guilty, it's the CAS.

b) it's not EFC who are facing charges, but (ex) Essendon players.

c) it's not the AFL who hand down penalties, it's CAS (again). The AFL will have to impose them and enforce them, but CAS sets them - which is one of the reasons the AFL made a submission.

As to belligerent ... not my intention, sorry if it comes across that way.

No probs

Its a drawn out saga. We'll know soon enough I guess.......

I understand about the "de novo" part, but equally, I don't know that there's going anything that fundamentally changes the substance of the charges against the players to the extent that the club would be seen in a different light by WADA/ASADA. The AFL? They're doing everything they can to make this go away, so not much joy there.

The fundamental that changes, apart form any new additions to evidence is how the hearing is carried out. Couldn't get more fundamentally different if you were to construct it yourself I've touched upon this before in regards it being conducted under the Inquisitorial style as opposed the Adversarial .

The AFL tribunal for al lit's denials effectively acted as any court would in this land. It had a tribunal that was composed of traditionally experienced men who law experience would gravitate them towards a "beyond doubt " approach whether or not that was the means test of the day ( which it wasn't ) Yes they would apply the test of 'comfortable satisfaction" but they imho were far from wanting to actually go to the cause of the debacle and instead pruned the evidence back to the point where they of course had to deliver the judgement they did. This being exactly what the AFL wanted/needed and it's why I view the whole charade as a sham.

CAs has already demonstrated its vastly different approach. Where it was unable to satisfy its interest in particular knowledge it called before itself a number of players. This was CAS acting, not WADA, not the players, but CAS. The nature of this hearing is to actually HEAR, to open eyes and see, and where bleary of inaudible to look harder and listen more.

What becomes fundamentally different also is that CAS have historically been known to give greater weight to evidence that might border anecdotal , or whereby those prosecuting may have A, B, F and H and can only allude to CDE and G via not so much proof as by the probabilities of these being given what substantiation they can muster.

The Acid test that the AFL tribunal seemed to apply was unreasonable bordering on the farcical as only Alchemists could have won over the judges

a) It's not WADA who will find anyone guilty, it's the CAS.

b) it's not EFC who are facing charges, but (ex) Essendon players.

c) it's not the AFL who hand down penalties, it's CAS (again). The AFL will have to impose them and enforce them, but CAS sets them - which is one of the reasons the AFL made a submission.

Correct The AFl finds itself in very unfamiliar territory. ....no longer the Rooster in the Hen House

The fundamental that changes, apart form any new additions to evidence is how the hearing is carried out. Couldn't get more fundamentally different if you were to construct it yourself I've touched upon this before in regards it being conducted under the Inquisitorial style as opposed the Adversarial .

The AFL tribunal for al lit's denials effectively acted as any court would in this land. It had a tribunal that was composed of traditionally experienced men who law experience would gravitate them towards a "beyond doubt " approach whether or not that was the means test of the day ( which it wasn't ) Yes they would apply the test of 'comfortable satisfaction" but they imho were far from wanting to actually go to the cause of the debacle and instead pruned the evidence back to the point where they of course had to deliver the judgement they did. This being exactly what the AFL wanted/needed and it's why I view the whole charade as a sham.

CAs has already demonstrated its vastly different approach. Where it was unable to satisfy its interest in particular knowledge it called before itself a number of players. This was CAS acting, not WADA, not the players, but CAS. The nature of this hearing is to actually HEAR, to open eyes and see, and where bleary of inaudible to look harder and listen more.

What becomes fundamentally different also is that CAS have historically been known to give greater weight to evidence that might border anecdotal , or whereby those prosecuting may have A, B, F and H and can only allude to CDE and G via not so much proof as by the probabilities of these being given what substantiation they can muster.

The Acid test that the AFL tribunal seemed to apply was unreasonable bordering on the farcical as only Alchemists could have won over the judges

Correct The AFl finds itself in very unfamiliar territory. ....no longer the Rooster in the Hen House

Hardly even a feather duster bb.

I notice they have another [censored] up on their hands with the Talia Bros.

Gambling commission is now investigating them.

Hardly even a feather duster bb.

I notice they have another [censored] up on their hands with the Talia Bros.

Gambling commission is now investigating them.

Who's the gambling commission investigating? The AFL? Or the Talia brothers? And what for?

Update: Just seen the other thread which states the Gambling Commission is investigating the AFL.

Edited November 30, 20159 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

Who's the gambling commission investigating? The AFL? Or the Talia brothers? And what for?

Update: Just seen the other thread which states the Gambling Commission is investigating the AFL.

So Gil the dill score board is 1 - 20.

He has got the price of Pies down so that looks his sole win.

The loss side is mounting rapidly the bookies have him "gone before the start of 2017" at 5-1

Old dee, before you put any money on Gil's departure, perhaps have a look at what I posted in the other thread about the supposed investigation by the Commission of the AFL, repeated here:

"Not quite. I've now read the article in the Herald Sun. (It was behind a paywall, so have read the print edition. If you have a subscription, you can find the article here). Mick Warner has extrapolated some nondescript comments from the gambling regulator which said, in effect, they might look to see whether possibly, there might be an off-chance that they could, conceivably, be interested in perhaps wondering whether there might, or might not be, anything that they could, possibly investigate...or not.

That, apparently, passes for journalistic integrity and qualifies for the back page. Of course, by now the Commission may have made up its mind and decided to formally investigate. If that's the case, I'll look like a goose."

Old dee, before you put any money on Gil's departure, perhaps have a look at what I posted in the other thread about the supposed investigation by the Commission of the AFL, repeated here:

"Not quite. I've now read the article in the Herald Sun. (It was behind a paywall, so have read the print edition. If you have a subscription, you can find the article here). Mick Warner has extrapolated some nondescript comments from the gambling regulator which said, in effect, they might look to see whether possibly, there might be an off-chance that they could, conceivably, be interested in perhaps wondering whether there might, or might not be, anything that they could, possibly investigate...or not.

That, apparently, passes for journalistic integrity and qualifies for the back page. Of course, by now the Commission may have made up its mind and decided to formally investigate. If that's the case, I'll look like a goose."

You are not alone LDC we all are capable of that.

Gil is IMO a light weight, probably be ok if the AFL was on an even keel but they are being hit by multiple problems from different directions.

It does not help IMO that Gil is an insider at the AFL with what you would imagine are a number loyalties to people.

What the AFL needed when Vlad left was someone from the outside who did not owe anyone anything inside the AFL.

We are now stuck with an AFL management team that spends its time covering each others mistakes instead of fixing problems.

The "Bombers" could start up a new (FLOS) Foundation League of Syria. Gil could open the first game.2 in 1