41 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

you cant take another provisonal...thats a furphy Im affraid. There has been a finding.. Now there's an appeal. Only up to the orignal tribunal would suspensions have counted.

 

Melksham has been at training

I'm not sure you're right about that BB. 

They chose to take a provisional prior to the last hearing. I believe they can take a provisional prior to this decision. I don't know that definitively but it makes sense. 

They were able to train last year with their team while taking a provisional suspension. It only stopped them taking part in competitive games. Ie last year's NAB Cup.

Last gif  for the day.

 

Demonland Logic 101:

1. Some players chosen by the full-time staff at the club turn out to be failures

2. Some Demonland posters said those players were useless right from the start

Therefore, Demonland posters always know better than the staff at the club.

Let's move on.

32 minutes ago, Chris said:

Why do I have that Michael Jackson song stuck in my head, you know the one, it keeps going on about being black, and white, oh yeah yeah yeah. 

The club can be well managed and go forward and make mistakes all at the same time Stuie. I am not saying they have I am just saying they can. You defence above relies on that not being possible. 

'''CHRISSSSS''''....now it's in my head. Did you have to do that.

20 minutes ago, Chris said:

I have thought the same about the management in how could they not see this coming. I have come to the conclusion that they actually didn't, that their reading of the whole thing has been that bad from day one, and their legal advice so appalling (remember the court case that embarrassed them but did serve to delay, which may have actually been their tactic) that they actually had no idea the appeal was coming. 

The other part of this is that I don't think so lowly of them that I would think they would drive the players into the shock of an appeal knowingly. Maybe I am given them too much credit?

Much like you i initially  thought as Bin....surely..

But given the advice and actions they pursued  you have to think they didn't  

14 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Much like you i initially  thought as Bin....surely..

But given the advice and actions they pursued  you have to think they didn't  

you could say they drank their own koolaid, bb

23 minutes ago, rjay said:

'''CHRISSSSS''''....now it's in my head. Did you have to do that.

Sorry, I forgot to allow for the collateral damage my post may cause. 

32 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Last gif  for the day.

 

Maybe

Stuie vs BB and Chris

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Yes. EFC were surprised by the appeal for crying out loud. The AFL have this whole grander than thou attitude that normally works but they didn't realise WADA don't give a stuff and will barge in where they see fit, as they have. 

In short the AFL are a joke when it comes to drugs in sport, the evidence of their ineptitude is everywhere to be seen and goes to all levels from the top admin staff to the juniors at AusKick. 

Maybe. Or maybe they just said they were surprised.

1 hour ago, Chris said:

I have thought the same about the management in how could they not see this coming. I have come to the conclusion that they actually didn't, that their reading of the whole thing has been that bad from day one, and their legal advice so appalling (remember the court case that embarrassed them but did serve to delay, which may have actually been their tactic) that they actually had no idea the appeal was coming. 

The other part of this is that I don't think so lowly of them that I would think they would drive the players into the shock of an appeal knowingly. Maybe I am given them too much credit?

You might well be right. Either way it is another shocking example of mismanagement. Or should that be an excellent example of  mismanagement? 

As for whether they would knowingly drive their players in to the shock of an appeal i think you are giving them too much credit. If they really cared about the players they would have counselled them to go down the Cronulla path. Its funny to think some questioned the decision of the Cronulla players to take the wrap and move on. It looks a smart move now.

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by binman

1 hour ago, stuie said:

 

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

Nice editing Stuie, showing some good skills. 

How about you do the same thing and post the entirety of each of those exchanges, and the preceding exchanges to provide context and you may see a different story come out.

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by Chris

10 minutes ago, binman said:

You might well be right. Either way it is another shocking example of mismanagement. Or should that be an excellent example of  mismanagement? 

As for whether they would knowingly drive their players in to the shock of an appeal i think you are giving them too much credit. If they really cared about the players they would have counselled them to go down the Cronulla path. Its funny to think some questioned the decision of the Cronulla players to take the wrap and move on. It looks a smart move now.

Essendon has always looked after itself in this issue. Players are expendable. 

The more players who leave the less collateral damage. The ONLY time Essendon has been truthful was on Day 1 Press Conference Feb 2013...

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Essendon has always looked after itself in this issue. Players are expendable. 

The more players who leave the less collateral damage. The ONLY time Essendon has been truthful was on Day 1 Press Conference Feb 2013...

I actually doubt that 'SWYL', they looked like they had been caught out to me...

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by rjay

15 minutes ago, binman said:

You might well be right. Either way it is another shocking example of mismanagement. Or should that be an excellent example of  mismanagement? 

As for whether they would knowingly drive their players in to the shock of an appeal i think you are giving them too much credit. If they really cared about the players they would have counselled them to go down the Cronulla path. Its funny to think some questioned the decision of the Cronulla players to take the wrap and move on. It looks a smart move now.

That all depends if you are teaching ethics or management and need examples for class or if you are a player on the end of a needle getting jabbed with god knows what. 

1 hour ago, rjay said:

'''CHRISSSSS''''....now it's in my head. Did you have to do that.

You've  got it Bad eh 

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You've  got it Bad eh 

Oh no, what have a started!

To assume that Essendon didn't have contingency plans in regard to a possible WADA appeal beggars belief. The public and private persona of the EFC are two different things. Since early days they have embarked on public relations campaign of epic proportions. The feigned surprise at the WADA appeal was merely another PR posture. Despite what people may think of Paul Little the man is no fool. Essendon's media manipulation throughout this sordid episode has been impressive if not arguably misguided.

1 minute ago, Outside fifty said:

To assume that Essendon didn't have contingency plans in regard to a possible WADA appeal beggars belief. The public and private persona of the EFC are two different things. Since early days they have embarked on public relations campaign of epic proportions. The feigned surprise at the WADA appeal was merely another PR posture. Despite what people may think of Paul Little the man is no fool. Essendon's media manipulation throughout this sordid episode has been impressive expensive if not arguably misguided.

Fixed it for you.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i wish there was a dislike button sometimes

It's call the ignore button on here. The last 4 pages are virtually blank for me and I only have a handful of posters on ignore.

6 hours ago, binman said:

My take (ie my opinion, not based on any fact):

• Goodwin is very unlikely to face any sanction so the risk in appointing him very low.  
• Why? Even if they do go after EFC staff surely it will only be those in an authorizing roles (board, Hird, CEO, FD manager etc) as proving guilt of any one else would be nearly impossible (eg 'i was told this is what we were doing and as an assistant coach i was contractually obliged to do as directed and in any case i was repeatedly assured by my superiors that all was above board' - an argument players can't run but an assistant coach could)
• Also i reckon that both WADA and ASADA will figure this case has absorbed more than enough time and resources and will happily let it end with the players sanction
• Taking Melksham was also low risk. Why? Well firstly there is a chance he won't be found guilty. If he is found guilty there is a chance he will miss only a handful of games. If the sanction is longer it is unlikely to be more than 12 months in which case worst case scenario he is right to go XMAS time 2016 and ready to go round 1 2017. Big deal. We have in Michie a player who can come straight of the rookie list into the team and a 24 year old with 100 games under his belt and no major injury problems ready to go the following year
• Also the AFL might allow us to rookie another player and as someone else said this might result in another rookie gem
• To say hiring Melksham and Goodwin is a high risk strategy that reflects poor decision making at the top is complete bollocks - in my humble opinion. 

Begone binman, there is no place for logical, well constructed argument on this thread.

3 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Macca, if they are found guilty I think it is more than likely the coaching, medical and some administrative staff will be issued with infraction notices by ASADA.

Based on?

As previously:

a) if there is/was enough evidence for ASADA/AFL to prosecute any of the admin/support staff they would already have been in the dock alongside Dank

b) guilt (or otherwise) of the players is not of itself evidence of anything in regard to third parties, which then leaves us with a)

Once again, I don't know of any cases where for the same offence, support staff (if charged) haven't been charged simultaneously with athletes, and I know of no cases where support staff have been charged on the basis of a guilty verdict for an athlete.

 I've already requested that anyone who has any examples to the contrary post it here so we can see/understand the circumstances - but none have been forthcoming.

9 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Based on?

As previously:

a) if there is/was enough evidence for ASADA/AFL to prosecute any of the admin/support staff they would already have been in the dock alongside Dank

b) guilt (or otherwise) of the players is not of itself evidence of anything in regard to third parties, which then leaves us with a)

Once again, I don't know of any cases where for the same offence, support staff (if charged) haven't been charged simultaneously with athletes, and I know of no cases where support staff have been charged on the basis of a guilty verdict for an athlete.

 I've already requested that anyone who has any examples to the contrary post it here so we can see/understand the circumstances - but none have been forthcoming.

Bing got a question about Provisional Suspensions. The players took them last pre season and missed a couple of NAB games. This would have been counted towards a guilty finding. They were still, bizarrely allowed to do full pre season training with the Club. Do you know if those provisional suspensions would be counted at all if they are found guilty in this new CAS hearing. Similarly can they notify they are taking provisional suspensions again since the end of the season which would also count towards any penalty if they are found guilty. 

feels like this is never ending

 

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by greenmachine

0fficially  sanctioned provisional  suspensions  are deducted from  penalties.

I still stand by my reading of the suspensions. No point at  present as they aren't under infraction notices.