7 minutes ago, greenmachine said:

feels like this is never ending

 

When Keating said "I want to do you slowly", this is what he may have meant.

 

Imagine having this s**t hanging over you every day for what, 3 years now. Although I think the EFC players knew something was up, and are complicit in the coverup, part of me feels sorry for them anyway.

3 hours ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

Maybe

Stuie vs BB and Chris

Which one is which and who wins?

17 minutes ago, It's Time said:

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. 

Provisional suspensions are credited against any full suspension, and they can only do it once. Apparently they have around 4 ½ months "in the bank". Banned players can return to training with the club 2 months before the end of any suspension. (actually ... shorter of 2 months or 1/4 of suspension period). i.e. If the players get a 6 month ban, they wouldn't have to stop anything (4 ½ month credit and immediate return to training).

(I make no claims for having any expertise in these areas ... I've just followed cycling fairly closely for a long time, and well ... you get exposed to a lot of doping cases ...!!)

2 hours ago, rjay said:

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

Yes exactly. They were stripped bare

before the lawyers got to them...

23 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

When Keating said "I want to do you slowly", this is what he may have meant.

 

Imagine having this s**t hanging over you every day for what, 3 years now. Although I think the EFC players knew something was up, and are complicit in the coverup, part of me feels sorry for them anyway.

They have all said they are innocent of taking anything banned so stuff em they deserve everything they get for cheating and following the company line . Its 2015 no excuses for atheletes . 

1 hour 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.

The turning point may well be if the players are found guilty and then open up and start to talk which will give ASADA more evidence. I wouldn't discount that possibility. 

2 minutes ago, CityDee said:

They have all said they are innocent of taking anything banned so stuff em they deserve everything they get for cheating and following the company line . Its 2015 no excuses for atheletes . 

 

I 100% agree. Well almost. I reckon they should let The Melk off.

2 hours 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.

Which makes one wonder why they didn't go after Hird when many see him as one of the ringleaders (or the ringleader) Maybe they just didn't have enough evidence then but might do in the future?

As for the rest of your post - it's a little difficult to find a timeline on all the drug offences that have ever been committed so to say that it's always been done simultaneously (for the same offences) may or may not be true. Opinions are one thing but are you saying that it is an absolute fact that it's always been done simultaneously ... or just as far as you know?

Just now WADA are going after the whole Russian track & field program (and those involved) after certain athletes from that program have previously been charged and banned. The Russian walker who won gold at the London Olympics is one such example. I'm fairly sure there were a few others that have been done for drugs in the recent past that were part of that program.

What we're talking about here are the coaches and support staff allegedly overseeing and supervising a PED injection program for the players at the EFC. If that is true and the information is made public then it's not going to look good for anyone involved there at the time. So, can these people be charged at a later date if the above is true? I would hope so. 

Edited December 7, 201510 yr by Macca

1 hour 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.

My sources. Which have earn pretty spot on so far - or haven't you noticed? I have every confidence in them. Can you show me yours?

Macca et all. Its a process. It's  a new road as such. Nothing anywhere has this breadth or depth. It pushed Asada to the brink. The players are the first step. When they are Done with them and established the platform of evidence  then the "staff"  is next. The protagonists are the true targets.  In time...one step then another.

16 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

My sources. ....Can you show me yours?

What's that supposed to be, some sort of put-down? Pathetic.

In any case "my sources" doesn't count as "specific examples". 

23 minutes ago, Macca said:

Just now WADA are going after the whole Russian track & field program (and those involved) after previously charging and banning certain athletes in that program. The Russian walker who won gold at the London Olympics is one such example.

Fair enough - though I would suggest that a) it's a fairly murky and far-ranging situation, implicating local drug-testing labs, the national federation and the IAAF, which isn't the case here and b) it's based on information coming to light retrospectively, which is IMHO, the only basis for introducing charges against admin and support staff at Essendon (or anyone for that matter).

As for Hird, he may well be the ringleader - but he has to actually have committed a doping-related offence for charges to be issued. Administration, distribution, facilitating etc. etc., it's all in the code. 

We shall see, but I'm not holding my breath.

22 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Macca et all. Its a process. It's  a new road as such. Nothing anywhere has this breadth or depth. It pushed Asada to the brink. The players are the first step. When they are Done with them and established the platform of evidence  then the "staff"  is next. The protagonists are the true targets.  In time...one step then another.

Well there seems to be some conflicting opinions here whether ASADA or WADA can or will pursue the coaches and the support staff if the players are found guilty and given lengthy bans.

There's also some differing opinions on whether the players will be found guilty at all ... I'm sitting on the fence because any opinion I might have on the outcome would be a genuine guess. The "comfortable satisfaction" bit is rather ambiguous in my eyes ... this is a unique case with a lot of grey areas that we still don't know about.

I've said all along that if the players are found guilty then they should cop lengthy bans. I've a strong inkling that the public will finally find out about all the details when the verdict is handed down. A much clearer picture will emerge and we'll all be able to make sense of it all - well, that's what I'm hoping for anyway.

I'd be surprised  if the Australian  situation hasn't  primed Wada as to how to deal with broader 'problems'

30 minutes ago, bing181 said:

What's that supposed to be, some sort of put-down? Pathetic.

In any case "my sources" doesn't count as "specific examples". 

Well you asked me what my assertions were based on. I told you. If you didn't want to know, don't ask. Why is that a put down? It is just a fact...

7 hours ago, Chris said:

The risk of what? Melksham being suspended is not in itself the risk, the risk is the effect the suspension has on the club. 

On another note, if the reward is low then surely the loss is also low?

Likelihood x Consequence = Risk

 

Extremely high likelihood x low consequence = Mid to low "risk"

 

Extremely low likelihhod x high consequence can still = low risk.

 

Its a simple principal, and you are quite correct in theory.

 

I think what most are arguing here, is that it was quite stupid of our club, to enter into any risk that involved the accused drug cheats at essenscum.There just doesn't seem to be any upside for us. In fact, the club that stands to gain the most, by far, is the accused drug cheats.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well there seems to be some conflicting opinions here whether ASADA or WADA can or will pursue the coaches and the support staff if the players are found guilty and given lengthy bans.

Technically, any further charges would be laid by the AFL - they're the ones who have to issue the SCN's. Which would then go back to the AFL tribunal, perhaps even to the same 3 wise men we had last time.

Can of worms.

20 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Fair enough - though I would suggest that a) it's a fairly murky and far-ranging situation, implicating local drug-testing labs, the national federation and the IAAF, which isn't the case here and b) it's based on information coming to light retrospectively, which is IMHO, the only basis for introducing charges against admin and support staff at Essendon (or anyone for that matter).

As for Hird, he may well be the ringleader - but he has to actually have committed a doping-related offence for charges to be issued. Administration, distribution, facilitating etc. etc., it's all in the code. 

We shall see, but I'm not holding my breath.

No need to ( hold breath)

Hird's been in the scope since day dot. But there's  a path to tread.

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

No need to ( hold breath)

Hird's been in the scope since day dot. But there's  a path to tread.

 

Yes I'm of the same opinion. I think that Hird's situation along with others goes back a long way, and a lot of other business.

Its probably not even WADA and ASADA business, dare I say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just now, bing181 said:

Technically, any further charges would be laid by the AFL - they're the ones who have to issue the SCN's. Which would then go back to the AFL tribunal, perhaps even to the same 3 wise men we had last time.

Can of worms.

Yep, a can of worms but that doesn't bother me at all.

If it took another 5 years it wouldn't bother me ... PED use in sport can't be just put aside because it may spoil or ruin people's fun or appreciation of sport. The fight against PED use in sport needs to get stronger.

My wish would be having a number of wealthy benefactors throwing hundreds of millions of dollars in WADA's direction.  WADA needs more teeth ... I read somewhere that Texas A&M University raised over 740 million in donations in 2013 but WADA's income for that same year was just over 26 million.

Yet WADA attracts unfair criticism for not being ahead of the game ... how can they be with that paltry amount of funding?

 

31 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Technically, any further charges would be laid by the AFL - they're the ones who have to issue the SCN's. Which would then go back to the AFL tribunal, perhaps even to the same 3 wise men we had last time.

Can of worms.

Technically  maybe. Effectively no

The AFL is forever  cuckolded. 

the thing that disturbs me most is that none of the principal instigators or executers of this program has made a sworn statement or being forced into a court to give evidence under oath and be available for cross examination

it seems we will never know the full truth without something like a royal commission. even then it may not be enough

all very concerning and unsatisfactory, at least from my viewpoint, and leaves too many questions hanging

Yes we will DC

49 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Likelihood x Consequence = Risk

 

Extremely high likelihood x low consequence = Mid to low "risk"

 

Extremely low likelihhod x high consequence can still = low risk.

 

Its a simple principal, and you are quite correct in theory.

 

I think what most are arguing here, is that it was quite stupid of our club, to enter into any risk that involved the accused drug cheats at essenscum.There just doesn't seem to be any upside for us. In fact, the club that stands to gain the most, by far, is the accused drug cheats.

 

 

Agree completely. The risk with Melksham is low as the consequence is low. The probablility of him being banned is high in my opinion but the risk to the club is still low. 

I think people here were mixing the risk with the probability.