4 hours ago, ManDee said:

Never thought I would point out an error in Hemingway.

Christ almighty ManDee  (apologies to those of a religious persuasion as against a spiritual one, that latter which I favour). However, you are quite right of course and I take it as a backhanded compliment. One Ricard to many I am afraid.

 

 

Seems like a situation based around deliberate plausible deniability, no one can say what they took because no one knows but Mr Dank who refuses to even let them talk to him,

Don't say anything.. cmon, clearly the only reason they can't say anything is because it may result in someone asking the question.

 

40 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

So when Asada is asking you about what you have taken and howand you say Nada because you've been told too !!??

Nothing to do with IP.....that's a crock

Ross Ray QC today told the Melbourne Magistrates Court players were instructed to keep the program a secret by club leaders including James Hird "to maintain Essendon's competitive advantage".

This is nothing to do with ASADA, this is in answer to the WorkSafe QC's questioning. This is not quoted as an answer to ASADA , WADA or CAS. 

It is possible that is in relation to a group of activities and practises that are not illegal. (Pigs might fly) Beeb I think you may have joined one too many dots, I am not saying you are wrong but it is not, "an admission of unequivocal guilt."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-12-22/fine-essendon-610k-over-safety-breaches-court-told

 

WORKSAFE Victoria has asked a magistrate to fine Essendon more than $610,000 for risking its players' health and failing to provide a safe workplace during the ill-fated 2012 supplements program.

The club will be sentenced on January 28 after formally admitting to two charges of breaching the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

7 minutes ago, ManDee said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-12-22/fine-essendon-610k-over-safety-breaches-court-told

 

WORKSAFE Victoria has asked a magistrate to fine Essendon more than $610,000 for risking its players' health and failing to provide a safe workplace during the ill-fated 2012 supplements program.

The club will be sentenced on January 28 after formally admitting to two charges of breaching the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

only 2 charges..............lucky break for essendrug

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-22/essendon-ignored-player-safety-supplements-regime-afl/7048630?section=sport

2 hours ago, ManDee said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-12-22/fine-essendon-610k-over-safety-breaches-court-told

 

WORKSAFE Victoria has asked a magistrate to fine Essendon more than $610,000 for risking its players' health and failing to provide a safe workplace during the ill-fated 2012 supplements program.

The club will be sentenced on January 28 after formally admitting to two charges of breaching the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

See, this is what bothers me.

EFC could raise $610K from its members in a matter of days. Meanwhile, the players could be banned for 2 years or more (they probably won't get banned for that long, but it's possible) and have their careers wrecked.

It's the mismatch between who's responsible for this farce, and who will get punished for it, that gets me. I'm not saying that the players are blameless, not at all. Just that I can see them being hung out to dry and made to carry a disproportionate share of the penalty, while those who should bear the brunt of the responsibility will get Old Dee's wet tram ticket.

WADA and/or CAS seems to have plenty of power to sanction individual athletes - do they have the same power to sanction clubs or organisations to an equivalent level of damage? It seems that, yet again, those who gave the orders won't get held to account, while those who carried them out will get squashed flat. Just for once, let it happen the other way around.

3 hours ago, ManDee said:

Ross Ray QC today told the Melbourne Magistrates Court players were instructed to keep the program a secret by club leaders including James Hird "to maintain Essendon's competitive advantage".

This is nothing to do with ASADA, this is in answer to the WorkSafe QC's questioning. This is not quoted as an answer to ASADA , WADA or CAS. 

It is possible that is in relation to a group of activities and practises that are not illegal. (Pigs might fly) Beeb I think you may have joined one too many dots, I am not saying you are wrong but it is not, "an admission of unequivocal guilt."

you know it is..... this is a classic..."gotcha"

This is nothing about IP..  and as if telling the truth to ASADA would compromise their competitive advantage......given the season...Bah  Humbug  I say !!

you know.....I know....we all bloody know.....  guilty as charged

When is the decision due? Christmas Eve?

33 minutes ago, CBDees said:

When is the decision due? Christmas Eve?

think santa might be delivering it 

1 hour ago, Akum said:

See, this is what bothers me.

EFC could raise $610K from its members in a matter of days. Meanwhile, the players could be banned for 2 years or more (they probably won't get banned for that long, but it's possible) and have their careers wrecked.

It's the mismatch between who's responsible for this farce, and who will get punished for it, that gets me. I'm not saying that the players are blameless, not at all. Just that I can see them being hung out to dry and made to carry a disproportionate share of the penalty, while those who should bear the brunt of the responsibility will get Old Dee's wet tram ticket.

WADA and/or CAS seems to have plenty of power to sanction individual athletes - do they have the same power to sanction clubs or organisations to an equivalent level of damage? It seems that, yet again, those who gave the orders won't get held to account, while those who carried them out will get squashed flat. Just for once, let it happen the other way around.

The players are responsible as well.

Dr Reid is innocent because he wrote an email outlying his concerns, the email was later eaten by his dog.

51 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

The players are responsible as well.

Dr Reid is innocent because he wrote an email outlying his concerns, the email was later eaten by his dog.

Wasn't a Bulldog was it?  They are seriously into clandestine intel according to Talia.

2 hours ago, Akum said:

See, this is what bothers me.

EFC could raise $610K from its members in a matter of days. Meanwhile, the players could be banned for 2 years or more (they probably won't get banned for that long, but it's possible) and have their careers wrecked.

It's the mismatch between who's responsible for this farce, and who will get punished for it, that gets me. I'm not saying that the players are blameless, not at all. Just that I can see them being hung out to dry and made to carry a disproportionate share of the penalty, while those who should bear the brunt of the responsibility will get Old Dee's wet tram ticket.

WADA and/or CAS seems to have plenty of power to sanction individual athletes - do they have the same power to sanction clubs or organisations to an equivalent level of damage? It seems that, yet again, those who gave the orders won't get held to account, while those who carried them out will get squashed flat. Just for once, let it happen the other way around.

You would think that all of this would have been pointed out to the players by WADA at some secret meetings recently. That's what makes me think they have or someone has

presented evidence, maybe even revised evidence.

4 hours ago, CBDees said:

When is the decision due? Christmas Eve?

Out to mid-Jan apparently. January decision on Essendon supplements saga

25 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Out to mid-Jan apparently. January decision on Essendon supplements saga

Well now, who will get it right? Sam the scoop or Jake.

Seems like both have taken a shot at it and probably neither has a reliable source given the amount of leaks not coming from the hearing.

One will be close to the pin the other will make up a well reasoned excuse.

Mid Jani is good. All bans refer to THAT date

13 hours ago, beelzebub said:

you know it is..... this is a classic..."gotcha"

This is nothing about IP..  and as if telling the truth to ASADA would compromise their competitive advantage......given the season...Bah  Humbug  I say !!

you know.....I know....we all bloody know.....  guilty as charged

Sorry Beeb did I miss something? Where has it been reported that the players did not tell the truth to ASADA? 

Week of Jan 11 according to CAS site:

THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS) TO ISSUE ITS DECISION IN THE ESSENDON CASE IN JANUARY 2016

Lausanne, 22 December 2015 – Following a consultation with all parties concerned, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has confirmed that it will not issue its decision in the arbitration procedure between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and 34 current and former players of Essendon FC before the week commencing 11 January 2016.

… The Arbitral Award is currently being finalised and is likely to be notified to the parties during the week commencing 11 January 2016. The exact date of notification will be announced in due course.

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

Sorry Beeb did I miss something? Where has it been reported that the players did not tell the truth to ASADA? 

Keep up matey. CAS raised concerns that the players story hadn't matched Young's. Hence why a handful of players called in to "explain" the discrepancy.

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Keep up matey. CAS raised concerns that the players story hadn't matched Young's. Hence why a handful of players called in to "explain" the discrepancy.

So nothing official yet. Why would the players story match Richard Young's he is the WADA lawyer? That is not proof, that is an opposing point of view (At this stage). 

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

So nothing official yet. Why would the players story match Richard Young's he is the WADA lawyer? That is not proof, that is an opposing point of view (At this stage). 

I think it was around matters where Young had said there is evidence the players took x,y, and z. Here is the evidence, yet during the interviews the players on mass only mentioned x and y, why did none of them mention z when it was clearly given to them. 

The players were called in to explain why they had not mentioned z as the panel found it very disturbing that they had not mentioned it. 

Sounds like instructions were given to players on what to admit to and what to not admit to given they all failed to mention one substance. That is not a good look when uncovered. 

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think it was around matters where Young had said there is evidence the players took x,y, and z. Here is the evidence, yet during the interviews the players on mass only mentioned x and y, why did none of them mention z when it was clearly given to them. 

The players were called in to explain why they had not mentioned z as the panel found it very disturbing that they had not mentioned it. 

Sounds like instructions were given to players on what to admit to and what to not admit to given they all failed to mention one substance. That is not a good look when uncovered. 

Isn't that the central point of the players' argument? That they didn't take "z"?

I'd hardly expect the players to say they took "z" if they honestly believe they did not. If they know they took "z" and haven't fessed up, that's a very different proposition.

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think it was around matters where Young had said there is evidence the players took x,y, and z. Here is the evidence, yet during the interviews the players on mass only mentioned x and y, why did none of them mention z when it was clearly given to them. 

The players were called in to explain why they had not mentioned z as the panel found it very disturbing that they had not mentioned it. 

Sounds like instructions were given to players on what to admit to and what to not admit to given they all failed to mention one substance. That is not a good look when uncovered. 

Can I preface this by saying I think Essendon & the players are guilty.

I am not aware of any such leak from the CAS hearing. If Richard Young presented said evidence and the small number of players questioned did not mention it you are jumping to conclusions to suggest they were lying. The players questioned may have only been given x & y, others may have had xy&z. Perhaps we are talking about the earlier hearing, perhaps the players were told that they did not receive z so they would all deny it. I don't think this is the "admission of unequivocal guilt" that we hope for.

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Isn't that the central point of the players' argument? That they didn't take "z"?

I'd hardly expect the players to say they took "z" if they honestly believe they did not. If they know they took "z" and haven't fessed up, that's a very different proposition.

'z' may well by thymosin, or thymomodulin, not just TB4, my take from the report I read was that in their interviews there was no mention of any of the variations. 

28 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think it was around matters where Young had said there is evidence the players took x,y, and z. Here is the evidence, yet during the interviews the players on mass only mentioned x and y, why did none of them mention z when it was clearly given to them. 

The players were called in to explain why they had not mentioned z as the panel found it very disturbing that they had not mentioned it. 

Sounds like instructions were given to players on what to admit to and what to not admit to given they all failed to mention one substance. That is not a good look when uncovered. 

Just a small clarificatoin 'Chris':  I don't think it was during the ASADA interviews for their investigation of the supplements saga (where all players had time to cook up the same story). 

I think it was that the players withheld information at the time of the in season drug testing in 2012 ie while they were taking the supplements.  Players are obliged/reguired to declare any medication/supplements at these routine drug tests.  These tests are done at various intervals/samples so very difficult to collaborate en mass.  As you say they all forgot to mention z which was Thymosin (good or bad).  Looked suspicious! 

I mention the clarification (home you don't mind) as I believe it is a greater condemnation of the players silence as it was before anything had been discovered.  Rhetorical question:  why keep it a secret!!  We will find out in a few weeks!!

Edited December 22, 20159 yr by Lucifer's Hero