6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Please point out some factual information that says Goodwin's job is in danger.

You can take it any way you like Stuie..means little to nothing to me

Essendon Players are right in it if they have failed to mention injections up till this point

If you want to dispute that Tweet Caro

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

You can take it any way you like Stuie..means little to nothing to me

Essendon Players are right in it if they have failed to mention injections up till this point

If you want to dispute that Tweet Caro

So that's still a firm "no" to having any facts then....

1 minute ago, stuie said:

 

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

So that's still a firm "no" to having any facts then....

I am sure WADA and CAS have all they need...If you think this is all a joke then i give no credence to your arguments...

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

 

I am sure WADA and CAS have all they need...If you think this is all a joke then i give no credence to your arguments...

If you don't have any facts then I give no credence to yours.

15 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

Here's a perfect example of how this thread is going.

Actual facts followed by panicked opinion.

There's no panicked opinion.

Its reasoned.

You're the troll running around quoting/misquoting...changing context to suit your particular stance. 

Many of us here have vehemently  stood to a stance that sees the 34 and support as guilty. Not just guilty but about to go on extended holidays. This is backed by understanding  what's happened  and the protocols in place to take prosecution  to its inevitable  conclusion. 

That you fail to comprehend how compromised this club now is is at the core of your ranting.

 

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

There's no panicked opinion.

Its reasoned.

You're the troll running around quoting/misquoting...changing context to suit your particular stance. 

Many of us here have vehemently  stood to a stance that sees the 34 and support as guilty. Not just guilty but about to go on extended holidays. This is backed by understanding  what's happened  and the protocols in place to take prosecution  to its inevitable  conclusion. 

That you fail to comprehend how compromised this club now is is at the core of your ranting.

 

Not trolling, just searching for actual facts before I panic, unlike most here. No misquoting or context changing.

So you don't have any facts either? Not surprised.

How compromised the club is? What exactly has Goodwin been charged with? Please enlighten me...

25 minutes ago, stuie said:

If you don't have any facts then I give no credence to yours.

Good Go away....

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Good Go away....

You're not going to be so lucky mate. Someone needs to be the voice of reason amongst you panic merchants, and if it's me, what does that tell you?

Stuie the minute CAS finds in favour of WADA and bans Melksham what will be your position ?

When Asada announce the infractions against the EFC staff, including Goodwin how will you argue then?

I thought our club was

becoming super smart. 

I just don't  understand  going after a so-so player with an axe poised above him when that pick could have been more wisely chosen. 

Nothing emanating  from the club instils me with confidence it understands the WADA position any more than the AFL does. ( btw..fyi...it doesn't  )

For the record I've  never panicked  about this. I'm  actually  just very matter if fact.

My view hasn't changed since day 1 of this debacle. 

Much of your positioning is invective of adding disassociated ideas as if they had  merit. 

All you can reason us as they haven't  been banned yet all is well and the MF C is above reproach.

As another suggested. You don't  really get it. You have company though.

As they say, Christmas  is coming. Santa's  checked his list...twice. He knows who's been naughty. So does Asada, so does WADA. Truth be known the AFL does also. 

I reckon CAS has a pretty good idea too. 

I'm  happy with my view and understanding  of what's  happened  and will happen yet.

I'm very disappointed  the club has willingly  compromised it's  position. No one forced us to and that to be honest confounds  me.

Each to own I suppose. 

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

Only if they have the evidence. If they didn't have it when the initial prosecutions were brought, hard to see how they would have it now.

(sorry, meant to include this in my post above, not trying to take over the thread or get my post count up ...!)

I take it you haven't softened your stance that the 34 players will be copping lengthy bans ... I neither agree nor disagree with your evaluation nor do I have a "wish" for a particular outcome.

I simply want the truth to come out and if the players are guilty then I believe they should receive lengthy bans ... it's the whole guilt or comfortable satisfaction bit that has many people wondering what the actual outcome will be. You seem quite sure though of the penalties coming their way.

One thing I do reckon ... if there are lengthy bans as you've indicated, there may well be widespread repercussions. Anyone associated with the injection program might come under scrutiny ... it stands to reason.

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

You're not going to be so lucky mate. Someone needs to be the voice of reason amongst you panic merchants, and if it's me, what does that tell you?

oh really you have all the answers...Just got back from Switzerland did we..?

You just love to stir any pot Stuie...

I'm of the belief that the players will be found guilty, unsure what the penalties will be. 

That aside,  I see that there is fair argument that I'd there was sufficient evidence against the essendon coaches/support staff then they would have been charged by ASADA at the sane time as the players and Dank. The only reason I can think why not is to properly isolate the players from Essendon during the hearings. Seems a bit too sophisticated. 

 

If lack of direct evidence against the support staff is correct and they aren't subsequently charged by ASADA, there is no reason why the AFL wouldn't suspend or ban them regardless. I think they'd have to. 

 

If the players are find guilty,  I don't think repercussions for the support staff are dependent on ASADA charges.

 

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Stuie the minute CAS finds in favour of WADA and bans Melksham what will be your position ?

When Asada announce the infractions against the EFC staff, including Goodwin how will you argue then?

I thought our club was

becoming super smart. 

I just don't  understand  going after a so-so player with an axe poised above him when that pick could have been more wisely chosen. 

Nothing emanating  from the club instils me with confidence it understands the WADA position any more than the AFL does. ( btw..fyi...it doesn't  )

For the record I've  never panicked  about this. I'm  actually  just very matter if fact.

My view hasn't changed since day 1 of this debacle. 

Much of your positioning is invective of adding disassociated ideas as if they had  merit. 

All you can reason us as they haven't  been banned yet all is well and the MF C is above reproach.

As another suggested. You don't  really get it. You have company though.

As they say, Christmas  is coming. Santa's  checked his list...twice. He knows who's been naughty. So does Asada, so does WADA. Truth be known the AFL does also. 

I reckon CAS has a pretty good idea too. 

I'm  happy with my view and understanding  of what's  happened  and will happen yet.

I'm very disappointed  the club has willingly  compromised it's  position. No one forced us to and that to be honest confounds  me.

Each to own I suppose. 

Goodwin, Roos, Mahoney, Jackson, Taylor.

Call me crazy, but I'll back their opinions, research and football admin skills over yours "beelzebub".

And once again, in your ridiculous ranting barely legible tirade you provide absolutely no facts.

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

oh really you have all the answers...Just got back from Switzerland did we..?

You just love to stir any pot Stuie...

I'm genuinely not trying to stir the pot here "WYL", I'm just yet to see anything that convinces me Goodwin may be in trouble. All I'm seeing is panic about it, but no actual factual information saying there should be any panic.

Asada as it's  now known  was very light on resources.  This case/prosecution  is unique. Asasa was extremely  stretched  in just bringing  anything against  the players let alone those above them.

I've  had it suggested to me Asada we far too trusting of the AFL and thought possibly they would do more. Even so they knew/ know  that those 'others' will still be there to attend to.

Since Asada's makeover and invigoration from Wada it has a new lease of life ( aka  kick up the bum )

The Reids,  the Hirds, the Danks, the Charters,Alavis etc will be already in sights.

If Goodwin is as well,  then he goes as well.  

I have no sympathy  for any involved. 

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

Goodwin, Roos, Mahoney, Jackson, Taylor.

Call me crazy, but I'll back their opinions, research and football admin skills over yours "beelzebub".

And once again, in your ridiculous ranting barely legible tirade you provide absolutely no facts.

Youre crazy

At the very least.

I agree with you

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Asada as it's  now known  was very light on resources.  This case/prosecution  is unique. Asasa was extremely  stretched  in just bringing  anything against  the players let alone those above them.

I've  had it suggested to me Asada we far too trusting of the AFL and thought possibly they would do more. Even so they knew/ know  that those 'others' will still be there to attend to.

Since Asada's makeover and invigoration from Wada it has a new lease of life ( aka  kick up the bum )

The Reids,  the Hirds, the Danks, the Charters,Alavis etc will be already in sights.

If Goodwin is as well,  then he goes as well.  

I have no sympathy  for any involved. 

So another big post with no facts then? Riiiiiiight....

Also, I didn't realize ASADA was going after the families of the staff as well...?

11 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Barn one would assume with the people that are in charge at MFC due diligence was carried out. With whom and how much we don't know but some questions were definitely asked of Goodwin, one would assume the AFL and potentially Milky as well.

All the club has said about Goodwin's appointment is that references were done and he was checked out with authorities. I assume this meant the AFL - hardly an authoritative source if I can put it that way. The last thing they will say is that "don't recruit him in case of a CAS trial" especially when they later said they were blindsided by WADA's appeal to CAS. For them to flag anything but business as usual to other clubs about Essendon, potentially puts all of their scheduling, trading fixturing and media right in jeopardy - it ain't going to happen. 

What I will say though is where were the legal hard heads who were supposed to be looking after the MFC's interests. AWOL I would suggest, or simply incompetent!

 

 

30 minutes ago, stuie said:

I'm genuinely not trying to stir the pot here "WYL", I'm just yet to see anything that convinces me Goodwin may be in trouble. All I'm seeing is panic about it, but no actual factual information saying there should be any panic.

Well if 10% of what Caro wrote last week is correct then i believe all Essendon Employees of 2012 are in a lot of trouble

With holding information about thyio beta 4 is the crux of the whole matter...The fact the AFL tried to sccot around the edges is of no interest to WADA or CAS

Btw There is no panic from me....I have thought these bastards were guilty since Day 1 of the Press Conference in Feb 2013

Watch any game from Essendon early weeks of 2012....they were all Huge

The Game against CFC is the one....Players spoke to Ratten...That i know because a very close friend was in the room.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

 

Nailed it Boss. Not seeing too many actual facts here that form a basis for the panic, just the usual posters that talk loud and say nothing.

 

Also, not sure I'm going to take lessons in "principals" from someone attempting personal insults on the internet in the same sentence.

Ahh standard little stuie response. You got nothing so you focus on an autocorrect mistake. Once again, it's the principle that we chose to get involved with the rabble, where a wide berth would have probably been more appropriate. There is no panic here, just musings.

You seem to enjoy taking the moral high ground in an attempt to stir the pot. You're not demonland's moral compass, snitch. What you are is a troll- an affective troll, I'll give you that. 

12 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

All the club has said about Goodwin's appointment is that references were done and he was checked out with authorities. I assume this meant the AFL - hardly an authoritative source if I can put it that way. The last thing they will say is that "don't recruit him in case of a CAS trial" especially when they later said they were blindsided by WADA's appeal to CAS. For them to flag anything but business as usual to other clubs about Essendon, potentially puts all of their scheduling, trading fixturing and media right in jeopardy - it ain't going to happen. 

What I will say though is where were the legal hard heads who were supposed to be looking after the MFC's interests. AWOL I would suggest, or simply incompetent!

 

 

Always been a mystery this one...I have no doubt he is a good Coach in waiting...But will he be allowed to show it???

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Always been a mystery this one...I have no doubt he is a good Coach in waiting...But will he be allowed to show it???

Thats the question  i agree.

He might well be 'that' inspired choice but will Asada  have its input.

Can you people please, for the love of god, put that idiot on ignore.

He destroys every single thread that he posts in. Its unbearable.

7 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

There are a lot of assumptions Cards.

One would assume if MFC have done their due diligence then the Essendon Players are not guilty. 

I cannot assume anything else than they are guilty.

Not at all, they may have said "well we'll get 2 years out of Milky even if he goes down for a bit."