I personally find it odd that you would bother heading across to another Fan forum at all let alone to spend hours on it defending your team for a black ops drug program. Glad you enjoy it X.

LU has been debating which regulations the appeal will be heard under and the probability of the appeal being successful, not defending Essendon.

As for a fan of another team heading to another forum, many on here will fondly remember Ash, also an Essendon supporter who graced this forum for a while. Many of us found his opinions interesting and had enormous sympathy for a tremendous personal loss he and his wife suffered.

No one likes a troll, but LU has not been that. The debate has been civilised and enlightening, far more so than the slanging matches that destroy threads on occasions.

Apologies if this has been mentioned.

It appears that the title of Chip Le Grand's (aka Large Fries) upcoming book on the ASAGA has got Martin Hardie's nose out of joint:

https://twitter.com/TraceyLeeHolmes/status/606389586869157889

geez Martin, wouldn't want to to have elements of truth coloured with smoke......it might mirror someone else efforts

LU has been debating which regulations the appeal will be heard under and the probability of the appeal being successful, not defending Essendon.

As for a fan of another team heading to another forum, many on here will fondly remember Ash, also an Essendon supporter who graced this forum for a while. Many of us found his opinions interesting and had enormous sympathy for a tremendous personal loss he and his wife suffered.

No one likes a troll, but LU has not been that. The debate has been civilised and enlightening, far more so than the slanging matches that destroy threads on occasions.

Haven't suggested the goose is a troll, again I find it strange.

Was great to see the drug cheats lose again this week.

Holding on to hack players, to keep the ranks closed, appears to be hurting them.

Poor hirdy.......poor, poor hirdy........

I'm not sure which amuses me more about this travesty,that WADA will wack the sh1ts,tird can't coach,the media picked a false favourite or the kool aid sippers will wake up to all above.Delicious.

I'm not sure which amuses me more about this travesty,that WADA will wack the sh1ts,tird can't coach,the media picked a false favourite or the kool aid sippers will wake up to all above.Delicious.

its ALL amusing

its ALL amusing

Now BB you will upset Tanya Hird Lance Uppercut with comments like that.

Keep up the good work.

If they had put their hand up,there would be a modicum of "forgiveness" already.While fatigue has scared many off there is just as many willing retribution for their non contrition.Hope they choke on their arrogance forever.

and we should add that whilst the social litigator is interesting reading, she is just a junior lawyer

i'm sure if we could get 10 legal opinions they would all differ in interpretation and detail to some extent

Paul Hayes a Barrister with CAS experience interviewed by Tracy Holmes on ABC radio couple weeks ago.

He seems to know his "stuff"!

Paul Hayes a Barrister with CAS experience interviewed by Tracy Holmes on ABC radio couple weeks ago.

He seems to know his "stuff"!

Thankyou for this link Deefrag.Noting it went for over 13 minutes, I'm not sure why I tuned in - but I'm pleased I did although the barrister's unwillingness to mention any names did make it a somewhat frustrating interview. What the interview did tell me was that this matter could drag on for as long as the parties have the funds to keep fighting.

At the end of the day I want to see the person largely responsible for the whole sorry mess - James Hird - thrown out of the game for good. As much as I dislike - no, hate, Essendon - I accept that further sanctions against the club will damage the code. Hird's outrageous statement that the AFL Tribunal found the players " innocent" and his pathetic self-serving comment after their thrashing yesterday that the WADA announcement had affected his players - only added to my anti-Hird stance on this whole issue.

Can someone explain to me why Worksafe have not taken action on the occupational health and safety failings which underpin all this ?

I had accepted that they had deferred any action pending the tribunal's finding. Are they holding off pending the CAS hearing - or is something else hindering their progress ? If not - then we must assume that despite club's governance failings, Worksafe do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute for administering drugs to employees without maintaining appropriate records? Surely the waivers the players signed prior to program do not protect the club from all its health and safety obligations ? How is it that almost 3 years down the track Worksafe has been deafeningly silent?

Thankyou for this link Deefrag. Noting it went for over 13 minutes, I'm not sure why I tuned in - but I'm pleased I did although the barrister's unwillingness to mention any names did make it a somewhat frustrating interview. What the interview did tell me was that this matter could drag on for as long as the parties have the funds to keep fighting.

At the end of the day I want to see the person largely responsible for the whole sorry mess - James Hird - thrown out of the game for good. As much as I dislike - no, hate, Essendon - I accept that further sanctions against the club will damage the code. Hird's outrageous statement that the AFL Tribunal found the players " innocent" and his pathetic self-serving comment after their thrashing yesterday that the WADA announcement had affected his players - only added to my anti-Hird stance on this whole issue.

Can someone explain to me why Worksafe have not taken action on the occupational health and safety failings which underpin all this ?

I had accepted that they had deferred any action pending the tribunal's finding. Are they holding off pending the CAS hearing - or is something else hindering their progress ? If not - then we must assume that despite club's governance failings, Worksafe do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute for administering drugs to employees without maintaining appropriate records? Surely the waivers the players signed prior to program do not protect the club from all its health and safety obligations ? How is it that almost 3 years down the track Worksafe has been deafeningly silent?

Mmmmm extremely interesting. This has clarified a number of issues which have been argued here, some of which I admit I had misinterpreted. Let me summarise briefly:

1 the CAS tribunal CAN compel witnesses to appear under oath through an Australian court and because CAS is essentially an arbitration tribunal it will more than likely be granted this time. The AFL tribunal was a tribunal hearing which were the grounds given by the Victorian Supreme Court for not compelling witnesses to appear last time. If they refuse to appear this time, they will be held in contempt of court which lead to criminal sanctions which will be enforced by an Australian court;

2 because it will be a de novo hearing, all the evidence will be heard again from the beginning including fresh evidence, presumably some of which will come from people who refused to testify last time, but others may also come from people who WADA do deals with to get to the truth, an outcome which is very likely according to some of my sources;

3. the level of comfortable satisfaction is likely to be similar to the AFL Tribunal, but clearly in the face of new evidence extracted from reluctant witnesses under oath the case will be so much stronger; and

4 there is the possibility that any outcome can be appealed to what is in effect the Swiss High Court, and if the judgement is deemed outside CAS juristriction, or it is deemed to be contrary to Swiss law, then it can be over turned, and apparently several CAS cases have been in recent years.

So, does this make a positive outcome to the appeal more likely or less likely compared to my previous position? In my view I think it makes it more likely simply because there is a much greater chance that it will get to the truth via being able to compell witnesses to testify under oath, and to admit new evidence from people involved previously who may deem it in their interests to this time tell the whole truth rather than obfuscate.

Very interesting interview from someone who has real cred in this area of the law, and especially how it applies to the workings of CAS. Certainly clarified many issues for me.

As far as WorkSafe is concerned, I agree it is puzzling that no hearing has been held yet. My understanding was they have been waiting for the ASADA/WADA processes to be completed, but with the CAS likely to take another 6-12 months to complete can they afford to wait that long and if they do, will effectively the evidence have gone cold? I have no answer to this, but what I can say is that they have begun I understand collecting evidence via questionnaires, albeit on a voluntary basis, but I have not heard of any other activity. It is I admit highly suspicious. The fear in all this is there is political interferance from the state government. Daniel Andrews is after all the Convenor of the Spring Street Bombers and is on record after the AFL Tribunal brought down its findings that he thought this whole episode should be now closed and "we should all move on".

However, if the CAS judgement goes against the Bombers, I do not see how they could justify not opening a WorkCover case.

Essentially the above has always applied but there are many in the football world including the media who have clouded the issue because of their own vested interests (and on both sides of the argument). The standard remains one of proof to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal hearing the case as to whether the Essendon players ingested the illegal substance TB4. There is more chance that Charter, Alavi and even Dank will be compelled to give evidence because of the different nature of the CAS Tribunal compared to that of the AFL. Supreme Court judge Croft ruled against compelling Charter and Alavi because it wasn't a court of arbitration - once they are compelled to give evidence the game changes.

As for Worksafe, don't hold your breath.

Come on everybody, let's hold hands and hug each other. Let's help lift this dark cloud hanging over Essendon. It's WADA fault and not mine that we are in this unholy mess.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/black-cloud-back-over-essendon-coach-james-hird-20150607

Edited June 7, 201510 yr by america de cali

Of course it's everyone/someone else's fault eh golden one !!

Tic toc

Haven't suggested the goose is a troll, again I find it strange.

After reading some of LU posts in the Big Footy Forum and noted a number of comments made about him/her, its my view the poster is a TROLL!

However I maybe bias in this area as I now have a complete dislike for the Essendon FC and all who sail on it due to my hatred of Club sponsored illegal substance programs.

LU and his/her mates can spin their BS all they like. However IMO the Club is as guilty as sin and should be expelled from the AFL. This action would put all other AFL Clubs on notice that the use of illegal substances to get an competitive advantage is not acceptable and will be appropriately punished.

Essentially the above has always applied but there are many in the football world including the media who have clouded the issue because of their own vested interests (and on both sides of the argument). The standard remains one of proof to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal hearing the case as to whether the Essendon players ingested the illegal substance TB4. There is more chance that Charter, Alavi and even Dank will be compelled to give evidence because of the different nature of the CAS Tribunal compared to that of the AFL. Supreme Court judge Croft ruled against compelling Charter and Alavi because it wasn't a court of arbitration - once they are compelled to give evidence the game changes.

As for Worksafe, don't hold your breath.

Yes and Tracy Holmes has been one of the worst offenders in the media in pushing the ESSENDON/Hird line, including being the ABC producer responsible for wheeling in Hird apologist academics nearly every time ABC News wanted "expert" comments on the subject. Listening to that interview again, I'm sure she did not realise what she was getting when she agreed to interview Paul Hayes - clearly an authoritative person on CAS and the Law. He certainly shot down much of the line she had been pushing for more than a year now

Essentially the above has always applied but there are many in the football world including the media who have clouded the issue because of their own vested interests (and on both sides of the argument). The standard remains one of proof to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal hearing the case as to whether the Essendon players ingested the illegal substance TB4. There is more chance that Charter, Alavi and even Dank will be compelled to give evidence because of the different nature of the CAS Tribunal compared to that of the AFL. Supreme Court judge Croft ruled against compelling Charter and Alavi because it wasn't a court of arbitration - once they are compelled to give evidence the game changes.

As for Worksafe, don't hold your breath.

Why do you say this 'Jack'? Do you think there is some interference behind the scenes or do you see the body as incompetent?

I was speechless readng hirds article, tb4 or not they are in this position because they can't prove themsleves innocent, because his program seemingly wasnt one that warrented comprehensive records, despite its experimental nature and the hundreds of thousands of dollars put into it. Say what you will about wada but rightly or wrongly this is 100% the fault of the esssndon footy club, not wada's for exercising their right to appeal, just as the bombers and hird has both done earlier.

Poor poor James, How's this Gem this morning in the Hun, refering to the impact of the WADA appeal.

"That cloud has come back and is causing a bit of a fog around their Brain and decision making in a game"

You must be kidding so the impact of WADA creates doubt in the split second decision making of the players WOW !!Comedy GOLD!

All I can say is bloody ripper!!

Couldn't care less if this brings the club to its knees and eventually wipes them out for good!

Now let's see one team less!!!

I know, let's coerce Nth to Tassie and become a truly national competition!

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by picket fence

Why do you say this 'Jack'? Do you think there is some interference behind the scenes or do you see the body as incompetent?

Not interference behind the scenes but a case of not really wanting to get involved because of the nature of the issue and therefore happy to leave it to others. In a sense, that also brings in their competence to handle something as big as this - and it is big.

had a get together with some old friends. two were essendon supporters.

got all the usual excuses but the two that stood out for comedic value were

"but they self reported and they wouldn't do that if they were doing anything wrong"

"it was all the fault of the afl because they knew clubs were experimenting with "supplements" and they should have put an end to it before it got to that stage"

Edited June 8, 201510 yr by daisycutter

Surely evidence is there for all to see in the round just gone which was a BIG LOSS.

If this becomes prevalent, remembering the emphasis on having to win games as being publically and politically paramount,

they can't realistically keep on blaming WADA pressure. WADA pressure would be nothing if they were innocent.

The next half dozen rounds will be crucial...

Hird creased the WADA mess,

If theres such a black cloud affecting the club, its because he made it.

What a [censored] he is. Absolute loser.

"Caused", I suppose? And of course yes, in one sense. But the "mess" now is just as much down to the stupid denial-decision of the tribunal, in my opinion. The AFL like Essendon could've taken their medicine and had life get reasonably quickly back to normal, but were too stupid/above the law to make such an obvious choice. As bad as each other, and on such a similar trajectory as to suggest that in this they were "thick as thieves".

Not interference behind the scenes but a case of not really wanting to get involved because of the nature of the issue and therefore happy to leave it to others. In a sense, that also brings in their competence to handle something as big as this - and it is big.

Beelzebub's 3 word analysis of the WSafe situation :

No political will