THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[jnrmac 20,053]

1 hour 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. 

Isn't the situation with Goodwin is that he used some of the treatements? Like Hexalerin (or whatever)...and if so I can't imagine any penalties that would be significant (and whether they have any evidence)....

It would be stretching it to say he was an integral part of the doping programme..

 

[jnrmac 20,053]

31 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

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

Notsure if it is the crux but it sure destroys any chance of the 'co-operation' defence....

[beelzebub 23,313]

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Notsure if it is the crux but it sure destroys any chance of the 'co-operation' defence....

Which brings us back to 2 years less suspension  served.

Should see them surface ...oh...around August  2017

[Sir Why You Little 36,963]

15 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Notsure if it is the crux but it sure destroys any chance of the 'co-operation' defence....

Depends how close Goodwin worked with Hird i would say

how much did he hear, see or co-operate...?

[Red and Bluebeard 2,083]

10 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

Using such modern technology is not the MFC way RBB

It is more effective than some coaches' methods ...

[daisycutter 29,603]

it occurs to me that wada are in a far better position to judge the guilt of the 34 players than either the afl, mahoney, roos, taylor, jackson or whoever at the mfc that stuie is unquestioningly prepared to put his faith in as decision makers/risk takers.

wada think they are guilty and are prepared to go to great expense to prove it. that should be enough for great concern.

but stuie knows which horse to back because of his "faith" in a few people who are not even involved. yeah, that makes sense

if cas find them guilty which i think is on the cards (but i'm not `100% confident) then at least melksham is in trouble and i would expect in for a holiday.

whether goodwin is in trouble, i'm not so sure. i think he is very much at the periphery from what i understand and might escape any punishment

if cas find for guilt them i'm sure at least some support staff (in addition to dank) must eventually be punished whether via asada/wada charges or the usual grab bag of afl manufactured charges

it wouldn't make sense in this case if the only football department support staff to suffer consequences was just dank, when it is generally accepted that this was a process instigated and executed by the football department (some at least) rather than being instigated by the players. but we shall see.

Edited December 6, 2015 by daisycutter

[stuie 7,374]

39 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

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. 

Soooooo once again, no facts? Facts would definitely help your posts be more "affective".

[rjay 24,853]

38 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!

 

 

The club went through a pretty exhaustive interview process with Goodwin, they must have asked the hard questions re the EFC saga and got the appropriate response. I very much doubt they would have based a decision just on the AFL's say so...

1 hour 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.

'stuie', I think Goodwin may be clear but I am a bit concerned about his lack of judgement.

However, even though the Melksham is not a big player I do think the club did the wrong thing in trading out a 2nd round or any pick for him whilst this case was hanging over him.

Even in the event that the players get the all clear, the only possible reason to recruit him would be if he wasn't one of the 34.

Nobody, no matter how smart or in the know can give assurances on a case that's being heard before an independent tribunal unless it is a Sir Humphrey tribunal which I very much doubt this is.

[beelzebub 23,313]

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Depends how close Goodwin worked with Hird i would say

how much did he hear, see or co-operate...?

Agree. It night come down to hairs splitting.

Twas a murky world at the Hill. Goodwin was there. He may be cleared but he'll  be looked over.. and over. They all will be. 

[stuie 7,374]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

The club went through a pretty exhaustive interview process with Goodwin, they must have asked the hard questions re the EFC saga and got the appropriate response. I very much doubt they would have based a decision just on the AFL's say so...

'stuie', I think Goodwin may be clear but I am a bit concerned about his lack of judgement.

However, even though the Melksham is not a big player I do think the club did the wrong thing in trading out a 2nd round or any pick for him whilst this case was hanging over him.

Even in the event that the players get the all clear, the only possible reason to recruit him would be if he wasn't one of the 34.

Nobody, no matter how smart or in the know can give assurances on a case that's being heard before an independent tribunal unless it is a Sir Humphrey tribunal which I very much doubt this is.

Yeah I'm on the fence about the Melksham situation. It's concerning to have any Essendon player come in with that cloud, but Jackson and Goodwin would have pretty deep contacts at that club and both are pretty savvy operators.

I'm more talking about the Goodwin situation as there seems to be a lot of panic and suggestions of terrible outcomes, yet I've not seen anything about him being charged or in any other trouble in any way.

[jnrmac 20,053]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

The club went through a pretty exhaustive interview process with Goodwin, they must have asked the hard questions re the EFC saga and got the appropriate response. I very much doubt they would have based a decision just on the AFL's say so...

Actually I could see exactly this happening. After all, if you believe what has been written, the AFL 'oversaw' the appointmets of Jackson and Roos. It would make perfect sense for them to 'vet' the appointment of Goodwin....

 

Just sayin'.... 

[rjay 24,853]

3 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Actually I could see exactly this happening. After all, if you believe what has been written, the AFL 'oversaw' the appointmets of Jackson and Roos. It would make perfect sense for them to 'vet' the appointment of Goodwin....

 

Just sayin'.... 

Understand where you are coming from 'jnrmac' but the club did say they were very thorough in making this appointment and more so with Goodwin being previously involved with the EFC. They asked the questions and were satisfied with the response, if the AFL wanted to add another layer to the process so be it, not all they do is wrong...says me, not the biggest fan of Dill the likeable and his mate Evo the destroyer.

I am prepared to take the club at their word on this for now.

[MrReims 313]

2 hours 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!

 

 

It's these kind of sweeping statements that do my head in though. The MFCs interests haven't been affected except in the imaginations of those who believe the future will go south. So I don't see the need for flinging mud at the board or our 'legal hard heads' or anyone else for that matter when nothing has happened yet!

 

The crux of the argument seems to be whether or not we as supporters would worry whether 2 individuals involved in the club at the time are now with us or not. If found guilty of any wrong doing any Melbourne player or staff need to be held accountable. It would be the same if they were found drunk behind the wheel or shallow graves were found in their backyard. Do the crime, do the time. But if the absolute worst happens and both jake and simon are banned for 2 years, I'm not going to be angry at the club! That's life, situations change and not hiring/recruiting who they believe to be the right person purely because speculation says there might be an issue further down the track would leave me far more disillusioned. How many on here bemoaned us missing out on Jack Darling? He was involved in a nightclub fight just before the draft. What if the next year he got into another fight and seriously hurt  someone and ended up in jail? Would we all say WC were crazy to take him given his history and the apparent risk? 

In other words right or wrong, guilty or innocent, banned or cleared I think the Mfc Footy department are smart enough to carry on just fine.

[felixdacat 459]

2 hours ago, MrReims said:

It's these kind of sweeping statements that do my head in though. The MFCs interests haven't been affected except in the imaginations of those who believe the future will go south. So I don't see the need for flinging mud at the board or our 'legal hard heads' or anyone else for that matter when nothing has happened yet!

 

The crux of the argument seems to be whether or not we as supporters would worry whether 2 individuals involved in the club at the time are now with us or not. If found guilty of any wrong doing any Melbourne player or staff need to be held accountable. It would be the same if they were found drunk behind the wheel or shallow graves were found in their backyard. Do the crime, do the time. But if the absolute worst happens and both jake and simon are banned for 2 years, I'm not going to be angry at the club! That's life, situations change and not hiring/recruiting who they believe to be the right person purely because speculation says there might be an issue further down the track would leave me far more disillusioned. How many on here bemoaned us missing out on Jack Darling? He was involved in a nightclub fight just before the draft. What if the next year he got into another fight and seriously hurt  someone and ended up in jail? Would we all say WC were crazy to take him given his history and the apparent risk? 

In other words right or wrong, guilty or innocent, banned or cleared I think the Mfc Footy department are smart enough to carry on just fine.

 

We find a new coach or convince the current one to stay 

We upgrade a rookie (Possibly Viv) and request another selection along with all the other clubs affected. 

If you think Melbourne are in trouble then you would hate to be a Port Adelaide supporter if CAS give their players a 2 year ban. 

 

The club and team will be just fine without Melksham and Goodwin so let's all take deep breath!

[Gorgoroth 12,920]

Stuie, most of us realise these are opinions on here and not statements of facts.

once you figure that out you might  understand and stop boring us with the same posts, we get your stance, we got it 80 posts ago. 

We all want facts, some try and theorise possible outcomes.

its what most of use use forums for.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

The crux of the Goodwin problem is this.

Assuming CAS wipe out the EFC players ... we have heard that WADA will then go after the "ringleaders", comprising Hird and who else? We don't know. It could be fitness staff like Dean Robinson. Or the good Doc. It could be desk jockeys like Paul Hamilton. It could be administrators like Robson.

(Who do WADA want to make an example of, to give pause to other sporting clubs who figure they'll try the Essendon blueprint?)

We don't know how much part Goodwin played in it, if he was a "ringleader", or if he was out the back cleaning the tent poles. He may fly under WADA's radar.

But here is the big but: the casualness with which banned drugs were accepted on the premises. A squeaky clean organisation would have had no part in any banned substances. Would have ordered them out of the joint in case The Man came knocking. But here was Essendon with Hird, Goodwin, and others, not only not doing that, but using them themselves, no probs mate!

That has to reflect poorly on anyone involved in that. Regardless of WADA, ASADA, ACC, ALP, MPLA, UDA, IRA or UK.

With 2/3rds of F.A. to work with, posters here are extrapolating scenarios proving each way that Goodwin is safe/gone for all money, and bickering about whose made-up scenario is wrong, and how Superman Jackson will proactively save us from any fallout.

Until show cause notices are issued, we have no way of knowing what will occur.

But we can work out this much: EFC coaching staff will not be receiving pats on the head from WADA. It is not reasonable to say that any of them are "safe".

Don't freak out yet, it may never happen. (Save your rage and panic for the right moment!) But don't be surprised if Goodwin is amongst those pursued by WADA in "the next wave". He is not safe.

[beelzebub 23,313]

29 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

The crux of the Goodwin problem is this.

Assuming CAS wipe out the EFC players ... we have heard that WADA will then go after the "ringleaders", comprising Hird and who else? We don't know. It could be fitness staff like Dean Robinson. Or the good Doc. It could be desk jockeys like Paul Hamilton. It could be administrators like Robson.

(Who do WADA want to make an example of, to give pause to other sporting clubs who figure they'll try the Essendon blueprint?)

We don't know how much part Goodwin played in it, if he was a "ringleader", or if he was out the back cleaning the tent poles. He may fly under WADA's radar.

But here is the big but: the casualness with which banned drugs were accepted on the premises. A squeaky clean organisation would have had no part in any banned substances. Would have ordered them out of the joint in case The Man came knocking. But here was Essendon with Hird, Goodwin, and others, not only not doing that, but using them themselves, no probs mate!

That has to reflect poorly on anyone involved in that. Regardless of WADA, ASADA, ACC, ALP, MPLA, UDA, IRA or UK.

With 2/3rds of F.A. to work with, posters here are extrapolating scenarios proving each way that Goodwin is safe/gone for all money, and bickering about whose made-up scenario is wrong, and how Superman Jackson will proactively save us from any fallout.

Until show cause notices are issued, we have no way of knowing what will occur.

But we can work out this much: EFC coaching staff will not be receiving pats on the head from WADA. It is not reasonable to say that any of them are "safe".

Don't freak out yet, it may never happen. (Save your rage and panic for the right moment!) But don't be surprised if Goodwin is amongst those pursued by WADA in "the next wave". He is not safe.

A well thought out appreciation of the dilemma.

[beelzebub 23,313]

10 hours ago, Cards13 said:

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

This to me is where any such logic is folly. If you are only expecting to get 2 years  at the back end of a 4 year paid employment then surely you're better off taking another player with the draft pick or using it otherwise and you still have  2 years to find other players.

If Milkshake gets the ban I expect you wouldn't see him play until 2018 !!  Brilliant recruiting

[stuie 7,374]

1 hour ago, Gorgoroth said:

Stuie, most of us realise these are opinions on here and not statements of facts.

once you figure that out you might  understand and stop boring us with the same posts, we get your stance, we got it 80 posts ago. 

We all want facts, some try and theorise possible outcomes.

its what most of use use forums for.

So repetitive posts of the opposing stance to mine are totally fine, but you want to have a crack at me for asking for facts a few times?

The theoretical posts are fine, but the posts slagging the club and saying we're dumb for hiring Goodwin and trading for Melksham are ridiculous given nothing has actually happened, and Goodwin has not even been mentioned.

[stuie 7,374]

8 hours ago, MrReims said:

It's these kind of sweeping statements that do my head in though. The MFCs interests haven't been affected except in the imaginations of those who believe the future will go south. So I don't see the need for flinging mud at the board or our 'legal hard heads' or anyone else for that matter when nothing has happened yet!

Bang. Bet you it's the same people who were praising Mahoney for the trade period and Jackson for the profit a few weeks ago too.

[stuie 7,374]

35 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

This to me is where any such logic is folly. If you are only expecting to get 2 years  at the back end of a 4 year paid employment then surely you're better off taking another player with the draft pick or using it otherwise and you still have  2 years to find other players.

If Milkshake gets the ban I expect you wouldn't see him play until 2018 !!  Brilliant recruiting

So if these things that YOU THINK will happen don't happen will you actually retract this and admit that maybe Mahoney, Roos, Goodwin, Taylor & Jackson knew better than you?

[beelzebub 23,313]

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

So if these things that YOU THINK will happen don't happen will you actually retract this and admit that maybe Mahoney, Roos, Goodwin, Taylor & Jackson knew better than you?

If it doesn't I will own my comments. I always do

 

What will you do when they all go on holiday...join them perhaps ?  In solidarity !!

 

Your whole stance is relative denial...it hasn't happened yet so  nan nah nah !!. You don't recognise the procedural stauts of the current hearing etc

Some of us don't need to be ht by the Reality Bus to know it's coming...and therefore get out the way.

Stand still by all means

[stuie 7,374]

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If it doesn't I will own my comments. I always do

 

What will you do when they all go on holiday...join them perhaps ?  In solidarity !!

 

Your whole stance is relative denial...it hasn't happened yet so  nan nah nah !!. You don't recognise the procedural stauts of the current hearing etc

Some of us don't need to be ht by the Reality Bus to know it's coming...and therefore get out the way.

Stand still by all means

Seeing you seem to have trouble seeing past your delusional state of panic, then I'll explain my stance.

Nothing has happened yet. The people running our club have been doing a sensational job, so it's ridiculous to start slagging them off because of something you THINK MIGHT happen but in reality has not even come close yet. Goodwin has not even been mentioned outside of Demonland, let alone charged with anything, yet somehow hiring him is now a huge mistake according to the panic merchants here.

Reality is dealing with what IS happening, not what MIGHT happen.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Im not panicked at all Stuie...   you're being inventive. Your'e taking the straw path of adding  to an argument as though to give it weight.

Im not panicked because I dont give a flying f whether Milkshake ever dons our jumper in battle..Hes irrelevant to our future in the grand schemes of things. Why would one panic about nothing.

Im not panicked by whether Goodwin coaches or not..i really don't care. He does/he does'nt..whatever.

My point all along...one you plainly are incapable of understanding was its not clever to pick your fruit from the rotten barrel.. You might get a a good one..or you might get a Goodwin !! We ONLY took Milkshake because of Goodwin.

Melbourne will exist quite happily without either or both Milkshake or Goody..  It will have been a great waste of time efforts and resources should things work out for the worse.

But please continue your  'Nothing has happened yet " rhetoric...it's amusing

You do understand the connotations of "YET "

 

By the way what IS happening is CAS are deciding the future of the 34.;... thats HAPPENING mate...that a reality..that's a FACT !!

The next fact to follow will be the decision, and associated penalty.

 

So please again, as you wont answer this will you..what will YOU do then ??

Edited December 6, 2015 by beelzebub

[H_T 3,043]

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

We ONLY took Milkshake because of Goodwin.

 

We ONLY took Milkshake because of Goodwin.

Really. Pulling you up here BB.

Last time I checked Roos and McCartney were mentioned along with Goodwin in the decision on Melksham. Particularly McCartney. These statements of yours aren't in line with the MFC consensus.