24 minutes ago, rjay said:

It's a deal, ASADA have shown they are not above doing a deal.

I don't know about you but I'm more interested in the truth than in seeing a deal done for expediency.

the two aren't necessarily incompatible

though in my book essendon have now lost the chance of any deal

44 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Does CAS publish reasons for their decision? In effect, the CAS version is going to be the closest thing we'll ever get to the truth, so it would be good if they do publish their findings. And once the CAS decision is out, I hope everyone accepts it, irrespective of which side they're on in this ongoing saga.

expect it will show up here in due course 

Recent Decisions

5 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

Now though, after all the game playing and obstruction, I think the book should be thrown at them. They deserve nothing less.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but haven't your 'sources' indicated the book will be thrown at them, that WADA will go after Hird and other high ups and that the players will get long sentences (two years IIRC)?

You seem to be softening your predictions.

To avoid post announcement spin perhaps you can provide succinct answers to the following questions , based of course on your intel from sources. Note that i am assuming they will be found guilty.

1. How long will the penalties be for the players?
2. How many games will the players actually miss after backdating and other considerations are taken into account?
3. Will WADA go after Hird, the board etc as you have previously forecast?
4. If your answer is to number 3 yes (and i'd be surprised if it wasn't) will they announce their intention to do so when handing down the findings on players (which would seem the logical time)?

For balance my answers to these questions are as follows:

1. 18 months
2. 10 (available to play from round 11)
3. No
4. Thye will be asked their intentions, suggest they will look into it and drop it thereafter

 

Edited December 16, 20159 yr by binman

1 ...2 years less time served. No backdating

2... They will have the voluntary suspension time served deductedfrom the 2 years making for 19+1/2 months from announcement. That's August 2017before they can eventrain withclub again.

3... I think they will go afterHird and Co.

4. .either at the 'call" or shortly thereafter.

3 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

1 ...2 years less time served. No backdating

2... They will have the voluntary suspension time served deductedfrom the 2 years making for 19+1/2 months from announcement. That's August 2017before they can eventrain withclub again.

3... I think they will go afterHird and Co.

4. .either at the 'call" or shortly thereafter.

Interesting predictions. Players out till August 2017 would end some careers - how old is Jobe Watson?

Hopefully we'll know soon enough

Chip Le Grand who has written a book about this and covered the saga extensively in his newspaper column, said this on SEN this morning

Quote

Le Grand has a gut feel that CAS will find the players not guilty.

“I’ve always felt it’s going to be very difficult for any tribunal to be satisfied that a banned substance was given to the players, mainly because there’s such an appalling lack of documentation and reliable evidence of what happened at Essendon in 2012, he said”

“In some ways the ineptitude and the incompetence of Stephen Dank, Dean Robinson and others were up to at Essendon has become an alibi in the sense that it’s very difficult.

“For the same reasons that Essendon has never really been able to say with absolute certainty what the players were given.

“That said all the parties involved in this case are certainly feeling the Court of Arbitration for Sport is having a much more serious think about whether or not it will find the players did take a banned substance.”

The author of The Straight Dope says lawyers for the Bombers are much more apprehensive compared to their previous hearings.

“The counsel that was representing Essendon, the AFL and also WADA, they’re all experienced and done a lot of these cases,” said Le Grand.

“People read a lot into certain comments made by the CAS members at certain times during the hearing.

“This isn’t like a jury trial or even an adversarial trial where you have the two side going at each other to try and win their case. It’s an inquisitorial trial style justice, which is the way things are done in Europe and it’s really about the panel trying to get to the bottom of what happened.

“It’s always fraught to read too much into what they’re thinking, we just really have to wait for the judgement to see which way it’s going to go.”

Read more at http://www.sen.com.au/news/12-15/le-grand-no-early-finale-likely-to-essendon-case#7VjFCJCKI13qFpuu.99

 

Edited December 17, 20159 yr by iv'a worn smith

I'm amazed by that narrowness of that line of argument; “In some ways the ineptitude and the incompetence of Stephen Dank, Dean Robinson and others were up to at Essendon has become an alibi in the sense that it’s very difficult.

It would create THE blueprint for mass-scale drug cheating going forward.

In the case of Lance Armstrong, who never failed a doping test, he was done on the basis of compelling and critical witnesses, who were with him in the team bus, when the doping was going on and blood transfusions were taking place.  In fact, these same witnesses were guilty of taking the same stuff, in the same bus.

Clearly, in this case, there is no such compelling evidence or testimony available with regard to the Essendon saga.

If SEN was news paper I would even baulk at wrapping my f'n'cs with it, As to Monsieur le Nong......well  He must be suffering from fanboy fatigue.

Edited December 17, 20159 yr by beelzebub

11 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If SEN was news paper I would even baulk at wrapping my f'n'cs with it, As to Monsieur le Nong......well  He must be suffering from fanboy fatigue.

Yep, that will always win out, that sought of cogent argument 

Edited December 17, 20159 yr by iv'a worn smith

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

In the case of Lance Armstrong, who never failed a doping test, he was done on the basis of compelling and critical witnesses, who were with him in the team bus, when the doping was going on and blood transfusions were taking place.  In fact, these same witnesses were guilty of taking the same stuff, in the same bus.

Clearly, in this case, there is no such compelling evidence or testimony available with regard to the Essendon saga.

I have no doubt the players  would have been of little use to Asada at the tribunal given how it was orchestrated but seeing half a dozen EX bombers as well as Jab Watson were called before CAS and Young given free reign to ask away I think the idea of 'no compelling evidence'is erroneous.

This has always been about sorting out the ducks....lining up the ducks....getting said ducks in the right order as well as flushing out a hidden/missing duck or two to complete the picture..

I think the dots are all joined now

Quack quack quack and Merry Christmas.

Well ...won't be that merry for 34 or so.

Be a lot of lawyers smiling though I'm suspecting.

I heard Chip Le Grand this morning summarise his thoughts on the proceedings. He relayed to us that the CAS/WADA hearing would be going over the same stuff as in the original - although in a different order. With no new evidence as far as he is aware. He indicated that with no new evidence, lack of (near none) records in relation to what the players actually took and no witnesses testifying against, that it would be tough to prove guilt.  He drew differences in the Armstrong case with regard to compelling evidence/witnesses in that case.

If this is the case, the players will more than likely be found not guilty unless new damning evidence is brought before the tribunal hearing.

19 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

In the case of Lance Armstrong, who never failed a doping test, he was done on the basis of compelling and critical witnesses, who were with him in the team bus, when the doping was going on and blood transfusions were taking place.  In fact, these same witnesses were guilty of taking the same stuff, in the same bus.

Clearly, in this case, there is no such compelling evidence or testimony available with regard to the Essendon saga.

Just a point of clarification, Lance did fail doping tests on a few occasions but always got off the charge. It is right though that none of these tests were used in his conviction for doping. 

I like the idea of two xmas's

If Essendrug get off all these charges because of no records then we have Vlad to thank for that. 

No records (destroyed) means instant guilt in my eyes.....

13 hours ago, daisycutter said:

think that is way too high, chris

there are lots of junior mbrs, country mbrs, interstate mbrs, overseas mbrs, concession mbrs, 3 game mbrs etc, etc

i'm guessing it is way short of $200 avg, so less than 14m gross. no idea what the net return would be

I based the $300 on the cost of their full memberships which start at $275 and go up over $750. You are right about the juniors, 3 game, country etc. Would be interesting to see the split and compare to other clubs. Do Collingwood really only have 20,000 full members and 50,000 other members? How does this compare to us for instance?

7 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

1 hour ago, binman said:

Correct me if i'm wrong but haven't your 'sources' indicated the book will be thrown at them, that WADA will go after Hird and other high ups and that the players will get long sentences (two years IIRC)?

You seem to be softening your predictions.

 

I also recall Dees2014 predicting that all sorts of nasty things would happen to EFC officials and Directors, even jail terms, from the Worksafe investigation.  That was a fizzer - just a $300,000 fine, end of story!!

7 minutes ago, H_T said:

I heard Chip Le Grand this morning summarise his thoughts on the proceedings. He relayed to us that the CAS/WADA hearing would be going over the same stuff as in the original - although in a different order. With no new evidence as far as he is aware. He indicated that with no new evidence, lack of (none) records in relation to what the players actually took and no witnesses testifying against, that it would be tough to prove guilt.  He drew differences in the Armstrong case with regard to compelling evidence/witnesses in that case.

If this is the case, the players will more than likely be found not guilty unless new damning evidence is brought before the tribunal hearing.

Monsieur le Nong knows jacque sheet.

He's just pushing out the old efc barrow like the good rent boy he is.

He can't know the extent or contents of this hearing. He'guessing,extrapolating from what he's fed,flying the Windy flag.

He'll be amongst a handful of the media who'll be shown up for the fIogs they are after this washes up.

A lot of damage has been done to Bombers already. The facts are people don't want to go there, recruits and officials.

People don't want to stay there, officials and players. The rest of this as yet unresolved Armageddon is icing

And this is just what we get from reputable daily news media....

2 hours ago, binman said:

C

1. How long will the penalties be for the players?
2. How many games will the players actually miss after backdating and other considerations are taken into account?
3. Will WADA go after Hird, the board etc as you have previously forecast?
4. If your answer is to number 3 yes (and i'd be surprised if it wasn't) will they announce their intention to do so when handing down the findings on players (which would seem the logical time)?

 

1: 2 years reduced to 12 months due to time taken out of players hands (even though the club has delayed on their behalf the players actually technically haven't delayed the process), less time served (although I am not convinced this can count), sees them returning eligible to play around the end of next season (I don't expect a result until mid Jan at the earliest). 

2: a season

3: Unsure

4: If they do it will not be an announcement to the public, it will be show cause notices served to the individuals at some point in the first few months of 2016, and we start his whole process again. 

26 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Monsieur le Nong knows jacque sheet.

He's just pushing out the old efc barrow like the good rent boy he is.

He can't know the extent or contents of this hearing. He'guessing,extrapolating from what he's fed,flying the Windy flag.

He'll be amongst a handful of the media who'll be shown up for the fIogs they are after this washes up.

Why do people have to resort to pinning nasty epithets on people, which it would seem, is simply because they hold divergent point of view to theirs?  Le Grand is anything but a 'Nong', nor, as far as I know, is he a 'rent boy' for the EFC.  As a journalist of long standing, I would reckon his investigations into this saga, are far more in depth that anything that has gone on in this forum.

I certainly hold no affection for the EFC, but there a rules of law, rules of procedural fairness and natural justice which must be applied, regardless of whether you hate the protagonists to the core or not. 

 

Edited December 17, 20159 yr by iv'a worn smith

27 minutes ago, Chris said:

I based the $300 on the cost of their full memberships which start at $275 and go up over $750. You are right about the juniors, 3 game, country etc. Would be interesting to see the split and compare to other clubs. Do Collingwood really only have 20,000 full members and 50,000 other members? How does this compare to us for instance?

not sure

maybe the annual report might list membership income as an item. this could help to estimate an average, though you would need a good understanding of what such an entry actually means. accountants can be tricky

alternatively you could ask the club (ours i mean, which would still be somewhat indicative)

34 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I also recall Dees2014 predicting that all sorts of nasty things would happen to EFC officials and Directors, even jail terms, from the Worksafe investigation.  That was a fizzer - just a $300,000 fine, end of story!!

Is the $300,000 the actual fine or is that figure the maximum the court can impose? My recollection (admittedly hazy) is that the court is yet to determine a sentence and the $300k figure is just the maximum which could apply for this particular matter.

22 minutes ago, Chris said:

I based the $300 on the cost of their full memberships which start at $275 and go up over $750. You are right about the juniors, 3 game, country etc. Would be interesting to see the split and compare to other clubs. Do Collingwood really only have 20,000 full members and 50,000 other members? How does this compare to us for instance?

Did some digging around and 2014 EFC published annual accounts show revenue from memberships was $10.880mil.  AFL published records show their membership in 2014 was 60,646 members; average of $180 each. 

What you and 'daisycutter' have highlighted is how misleading the raw membership numbers are eg with EFC start point of $275, a high of $750 and an average of $180 there is a lot of dilution happening by lower value memberships.

Maybe EFC count pets as members!!!

I can't compare the mix of members across clubs as the AFL does not publish the breakdown.

 

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not sure

maybe the annual report might list membership income as an item. this could help to estimate an average, though you would need a good understanding of what such an entry actually means. accountants can be tricky

alternatively you could ask the club (ours i mean, which would still be somewhat indicative)

I hadn't seen this post when I put up the post with more membership/revenue details.

I'm not sure about 'accountants can be tricky' but you are quite right, I could not do averages for Collingwood and Melbourne because they bundle other money in with membership fees revenue eg gate takings, fundraising.  The AFL should have a certain format for all clubs to follow, I reckon.