8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Yes we will DC

a guilty verdict based on balance of probabilities still won't answer those questions though bb

at least not to me and i presume others, unless the dam subsequently breaks and some(one) spill the beans

i'd like to see wada investigations and/or wada trials get better subpoena powers in the future but i'm not confident

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

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?

 

Bit of topic but Macca A&M is 7th or 8th richest college in U.S. The top 5 richest have over $100 Billion in the bank. Harvard, Yale, UT, Standford and Princeton.  Massive endowments and they get government funding and subsidies.

 

Why would people continue to give to these places when they clearly have no need for the money?

Like the ad DC...not overnight. ..but it will happen .

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Like the ad DC...not overnight. ..but it will happen .

the racing industry seem to have better investigative powers........just saying

Just now, Cards13 said:

Bit of topic but Macca A&M is 7th or 8th richest college in U.S. The top 5 richest have over $100 Billion in the bank. Harvard, Yale, UT, Standford and Princeton.  Massive endowments and they get government funding and subsidies.

 

Why would people continue to give to these places when they clearly have no need for the money?

Yep, it is obscene amounts of money yet WADA has to scrimp for every cent it can get.

We've effectively got a world anti-doping body trying to catch all the world's cheats with a paltry amount of money as funding - it's any wonder that PED use in sport worldwide is out of control. The problem is far far greater than what we can actually see.

 

 

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the racing industry seem to have better investigative powers........just saying

Its changing.  Just the  AFL can't  keep  up !

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the racing industry seem to have better investigative powers........just saying

Yet even with those powers, they seem to have more problems. Live baiting, cobalt, etc. Just imagine if horses could talk.

One of the problems in this matter, is that it is impossible to make someone like Dank talk. He can be sanctioned for not talking...but if he chooses not to talk he has that right. And for as long as Dank doesn't talk, I doubt we'll ever know the truth. (And even if talks I have no confidence that he'll actually tell the truth anyway).  

 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

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. 

Chris, I actually think most who are debating with you, are actually of the same opinion as me. That is, why take ANY risk with essenscum, that didnt have a huge potential upside for us.

 

Think of it this way. If Jake gets boned, we have lost. Not a huge amount on face value if you are only judging it by Melksham missing a seqson or so, but it needs to be considered against  the alternatives.

 

1: We use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a star.

2: We use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a dud.

3:Essedon use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a star.

4: Essedon use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a dud.

 

Yes, obviously other alternatives, but lets keep it simple.

 

At this stage, the "best case" for us, is that we end up with an average player, who is not banned, and who is a regular starting player, but is never a star.

 

The only club that has the ability to get a star out of this is essedon. And its us who carry 100% of the associated risk as far as WADA goes, which many of us have been saying for the whole episode, looks grim for the players.

 

The only risk that the accused performance enhancing drug cheats carry, is did they choose the correct player, and will he thrive in a drug free environment.

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by faultydet

1 hour ago, faultydet said:

Chris, I actually think most who are debating with you, are actually of the same opinion as me. That is, why take ANY risk with essenscum, that didnt have a huge potential upside for us.

 

Think of it this way. If Jake gets boned, we have lost. Not a huge amount on face value if you are only judging it by Melksham missing a seqson or so, but it needs to be considered against  the alternatives.

 

1: We use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a star.

2: We use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a dud.

3:Essedon use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a star.

4: Essedon use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a dud.

 

Yes, obviously other alternatives, but lets keep it simple.

 

At this stage, the "best case" for us, is that we end up with an average player, who is not banned, and who is a regular starting player, but is never a star.

 

The only club that has the ability to get a star out of this is essedon. And its us who carry 100% of the associated risk as far as WADA goes, which many of us have been saying for the whole episode, looks grim for the players.

 

The only risk that the accused performance enhancing drug cheats carry, is did they choose the correct player, and will he thrive in a drug free environment.

Agree with this. I think if you look at the likely hood of the each of the options given the gamble puts us still at little loss as the chance of a star or dud from the pick is 50/50 at best and the most likely outcome is an average player. 

I am not comfortable we took the chance and don't thin. It was the best option, I just don't think it was as bad a decision as put forward here. 

Will have to wait and see 

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

a guilty verdict based on balance of probabilities still won't answer those questions though bb

at least not to me and i presume others, unless the dam subsequently breaks and some(one) spill the beans

i'd like to see wada investigations and/or wada trials get better subpoena powers in the future but i'm not confident

I think what we will get is a considered view from the CAS arbitrators as to what they think DID go on, and from that there is every likelihood there will be suspensions. That to me will be enough, so long as it is also followed by infraction notices and hopefully suspensions of the real guilty parties, Hird and the Essendon hierarchy. 

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

a guilty verdict based on balance of probabilities still won't answer those questions though bb

at least not to me and i presume others, unless the dam subsequently breaks and some(one) spill the beans

i'd like to see wada investigations and/or wada trials get better subpoena powers in the future but i'm not confident

If anyone decides to sue, and lets face it, the player managers and their lawyers will be sniffing an easy payday here so its a given, then the people suing MUST spill the beans.

 

Guilty verdicts mean the real truth is extremely likely to emerge. Yay.

Edited December 7, 20159 yr by faultydet

4 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

Most punchable head in the history of Australian Rules Football. (maybe equal with eddie mcguire)

18 hours ago, faultydet said:

Chris, I actually think most who are debating with you, are actually of the same opinion as me. That is, why take ANY risk with essenscum, that didnt have a huge potential upside for us.

 

Think of it this way. If Jake gets boned, we have lost. Not a huge amount on face value if you are only judging it by Melksham missing a seqson or so, but it needs to be considered against  the alternatives.

 

1: We use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a star.

2: We use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a dud.

3:Essedon use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a star.

4: Essedon use the pick to draft a kid who goes on to be a dud.

 

Yes, obviously other alternatives, but lets keep it simple.

 

At this stage, the "best case" for us, is that we end up with an average player, who is not banned, and who is a regular starting player, but is never a star.

 

The only club that has the ability to get a star out of this is essedon. And its us who carry 100% of the associated risk as far as WADA goes, which many of us have been saying for the whole episode, looks grim for the players.

 

The only risk that the accused performance enhancing drug cheats carry, is did they choose the correct player, and will he thrive in a drug free environment.

The probability of a draft pick in the high 20's being a 100+ player is quite low. The probability of that player being a star is even more remote. JM has already played over 100 games and a there is a chance that he might actually turn into a very valuable player. Even if we don't see him this year (re WADA) I think its a risk worth taking. 

Edited December 8, 20159 yr by djr

And if we don't see him in 17 either....how's his value then ?

12 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

Hirds reaction when EFC players asked if the drugs were legal.

8 hours ago, faultydet said:

If anyone decides to sue, and lets face it, the player managers and their lawyers will be sniffing an easy payday here so its a given, then the people suing MUST spill the beans.

 

Guilty verdicts mean the real truth is extremely likely to emerge. Yay.

The same player managers who appear to have done f all to be on point with PEDs and there clients obligations and how to protect themselves from this mess.

37 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

The same player managers who appear to have done f all to be on point with PEDs and there clients obligations and how to protect themselves from this mess.

If there are lengthy bans it will be interesting to see and hear what the players have got to say and whether they will tell all and "spill the beans"so to speak. 

Of course, anything they might say in the aftermath could well have been said a lot earlier.

47 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

The same player managers who appear to have done f all to be on point with PEDs and there clients obligations and how to protect themselves from this mess.

Precisely the same.

 

You will be able to rely on them to protect their own income though, and thats through legal action when the player is banned. Count on it. 

9 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Precisely the same.

 

You will be able to rely on them to protect their own income though, and thats through legal action when the player is banned. Count on it. 

Be interesting to see if any action is forthcoming against any of the managers and/or the players association for poor advice.

It hit me today watching the interview with Jake Melksham on the MFC site how much suffering this sorry saga has caused the players who appear to have been abused by their club or coach or medical team at the EFC.

Hearing Jake talk about losing his passion for football, not reading the paper for 3 years, etc... made me feel a lot of compassion for these young men, who just want to play footy and have found themselves hung out to dry.

Its sad.

12 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

It hit me today watching the interview with Jake Melksham on the MFC site how much suffering this sorry saga has caused the players who appear to have been abused by their club or coach or medical team at the EFC.

Hearing Jake talk about losing his passion for football, not reading the paper for 3 years, etc... made me feel a lot of compassion for these young men, who just want to play footy and have found themselves hung out to dry.

Its sad.

Like the guy who was stealing from work to gamble it away on the pokies.....'I didn't expect to get caught'....

Seriously, these guys have themselves to blame. If it was my son I would be furious that these forkers have done what they did. I would be suing the pants off them and screaming to get to the bottom of this,

I simply do not believe that not one of them sought external advice from a wife, girlfriend, doctor, website, manager etc etc  I mean how many of us check google when we are sick to see what Dr Google says? As tough as it is feel for the victims of cheating - we were one of the victims. What about feeling sorry for our players that had to play against the cheats.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

And if we don't see him in 17 either....how's his value then ?

IMO, 2 years suspension from now,  would be an impossible penalty to hand down. Given the course of this saga, that won't happen.

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Like the guy who was stealing from work to gamble it away on the pokies.....'I didn't expect to get caught'....

Seriously, these guys have themselves to blame. If it was my son I would be furious that these forkers have done what they did. I would be suing the pants off them and screaming to get to the bottom of this,

I simply do not believe that not one of them sought external advice from a wife, girlfriend, doctor, website, manager etc etc  I mean how many of us check google when we are sick to see what Dr Google says? As tough as it is feel for the victims of cheating - we were one of the victims. What about feeling sorry for our players that had to play against the cheats.

 

 

 

Lots of unfounded assumptions that serve to allow you to feel righteous! Bully for you.

Try some compassion for some of those involved in this saga who are suffering for the wrongs of others. 

4 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

Lots of unfounded assumptions that serve to allow you to feel righteous! Bully for you.

Try some compassion for some of those involved in this saga who are suffering for the wrongs of others. 

I have compassion but unlike some others it is directed at the victims if the cheating not the perpetrators.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

IMO, 2 years suspension from now,  would be an impossible penalty to hand down. Given the course of this saga, that won't happen.

and who's fault is that Red ?   2 years minus the served time.  put them back on deck around august 17.   Fine by me